Universal Contracting & Brick Pointing Co. v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “no procedural due process right has been violated unless and until the state fails to remedy” the alleged inadequacy in the process provided
• holding that an adequate state remedy providing for a post-deprivation process is sufficient to cure a procedural deprivation
• holding that “only when the state refuses to provide a process sufficient to remedy the procedural deprivation does a constitutional violation actionable under section 1983 arise”
• holding that plaintiff’s allegations concerning loss of employment, including allegations regarding his purported “liberty interest in his good name and reputation,” only supported a procedural due process claim
• holding that the “state court possessing the ability to remedy the alleged procedural defect” was the appropriate forum to address procedural due process claim and might obviate the need for suit in federal court
• explaining that substantive due process only protects fundamental rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).