Paul Barrows v. John Wiley and Luoluo Hong

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that plaintiff must demonstrate that deprivation caused “some economic loss” or “identifiable impact on [her] future income or economic benefits”
• explaining that plaintiff must demonstrate that deprivation caused “some economic loss” or “identifiable impact on [her] future income or economic benefits”
• distinguishing between mere acquisitional opportunities which do not implicate the Constitution, and vested benefits protected by nondiscretionary rules of which someone may not be deprived without due process
• the “first step of the due process analysis requires us to consider initially whether Barrows had property interests in his [job], and secondarily whether he suffered economic harm from a property deprivation”
• “Where state law gives people a benefit and creates a system of nondi'scretionary rules governing revocation or renewal of that benefit, the recipients have a secure and durable property right, a legitimate claim of entitlement.” (citation omitted)
• the “first step of the due process analysis requires us to consider initially whether Barrows had property interests in his [job], and secondarily whether he suffered economic harm from a property deprivation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).