Clubside, Inc. v. Valentin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the statutory authority to consider whether [an application] [was] in the public interest vest[ed] the [local authority] with sufficient discretion to defeat [the plaintiffs] claim to a constitutionally protecta-ble property interest”
• noting that the “certainty or very strong likelihood” standard is met “only where the issuing authority has virtually no discretion to deny [an] application”
• adding that while “normally” the similarly situated determination is “grist for the jury’s mill,” a judge can dispose of an equal-protection claim via summary judgment if plaintiffs fail to shoulder their burden on this critical issue
• describing a plaintiffs burden at summary judgment in a class of one case as “more stringent than that used at summary judgment in the employment discrimination context”
• finding, on summary judgment, that 28 single-family homes were insufficiently similar to 288 duplex/triplex townhouses
• rejecting class-of-one claim where zoning board’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious” under state law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).