Beeler v. Rounsavall

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that parties were not similarly situated comparators because the zoning ordinance distinguished two applications based on the circumstances
• rejecting as an equal comparator someone who applied to renew permits where the plaintiff had applied for a new permit
• rejecting as an equal comparator someone who applied to renew permits where the plaintiff had applied for a new permit
• “It must be shown that selective enforcement was deliberately based on an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion or other arbitrary classification.”
• “The Code’s differential treatment of businesses applying for their first permit and businesses applying to renew their permits indicates that [the two] were not similarly situated.”
• alleged comparators must be similarly situated “under the Code”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).