Dino Jimenez-Morales v. U.S. Attorney General

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that it was unclear whether plaintiffs were engaged in petitioning conduct when they submitted a development application to local planning board
• concluding that Water District’s Superintendent’s concern that subdivision would harm town’s water supply “does not . . . appear baseless” and “is hardly the . . . stuff that makes a substantive due process claim”
• noting that the First Amendment “protects (among other things) the right to free speech and the right to petition all branches of the government”
• noting that Water District’s Superintendent spoke out against subdivision’s impact on water supply at Planning Board meeting
• noting that “[t]here is every presumption in favor of the honesty and sufficiency of the motives actuating public officers in actions ostensibly taken for the general welfare”
• noting that “[t]here is every presumption in favor of the honesty and sufficiency of the motives actuating public officers in actions ostensibly taken for the general welfare”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).