Caesars Massachusetts Management Co. v. Crosby

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing Engquist and declining to apply the class-of-one theory to the context of licensure for operating a casino
• stating that “no class of one cause of action can be recognized against state actors” given broad discretion in making the challenged decision
• stating that Engquist’s “reasoning extends beyond its particular facts”
• “the ‘pivotal question’ in deciding the prospective or retrospective character of the requested relief is ‘whether the requested relief would directly bring an end to an ongoing violation of federal law.’”
• “Massachusetts courts have consistently held that some sort of for-cause termination provision is necessary in order for a contractual benefit of continued employment to qualify as ‘protected property’ for purposes of due process.” (collecting cases)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).