Cronin v. Town of Amesbury

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that almost three-year delay caused by investigations and public hearings did not violate due process where the possibility of reinstatement with back pay remained available
• holding that attorney's failure to articulate any reasoned basis for why the District Court erroneously dismissed his claim needlessly multiplied the proceedings and warranted the imposition of sanctions
• noting that issue of whether public officials acted on plaintiffs’ grievances was “a separate matter that does not retain a constitutional dimension”
• rejecting a public employee's claim that the hearing officer who terminated his employment was biased because the state provided an adequate post-deprivation remedy
• delay did not render post-deprivation remedy inadequate because \the possibility\ of plaintiff receiving the remedy remained
• postdeprivation remedies relevant where plaintiff alleged his termination resulted from defendants' 19 random and unauthorized actions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).