According to the Parratt-Hudson doctrine, a random and unauthorized deprivation does not violate procedural due process if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. The standard was set in the twin cases Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1981) and Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1984). In Parratt, the court held that post deprivation remedies made available by the State can satisfy the Due Process Clause of U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Either the necessity of quick action by the State or the impracticality of providing any meaningful pre deprivation process, when coupled with the availability of some meaningful means by which to assess the propriety of the State's action at some time after the initial taking, can satisfy the requirements of procedural due process. Like wise in Hudson, the court held that an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the due process clause of U.S. Const. amend. XIV if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy for the loss is available. For intentional, as for negligent deprivations of property by state employees, the state's action is not complete until and unless it provides or refuses to provide a suitable post-deprivation remedy.