context: Precedents do not supply a clear answer. The Supreme Court has held that the use of unreasonable force by a public school teacher against a student does not constitute a deprivation of liberty "without due process of law" where the state has provided the student with a post-deprivation tort remedy.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 101 S.Ct. 1916, 1916-17
citation_a.parenthetical: negligently caused deprivation of property not without due process of law where post-deprivation remedy available
citation_a.sentence: Cf. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. at 543-44,101 S.Ct. at 1916-17 (negligently caused deprivation of property not without due process of law where post-deprivation remedy available).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 97 S.Ct. 1413, 1413-19
citation_b.parenthetical: noting the state's long-recognized interest in permitting the use of corporal punishment in public schools as a means for maintaining discipline
citation_b.sentence: Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. at 673-83, 97 S.Ct. at 1413-19 (noting the state’s long-recognized interest in permitting the use of corporal punishment in public schools as a means for maintaining discipline).