Flowers v. City of Minneapolis, Minn.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a police officer’s investigative decision “may not be attacked in a class- of-one equal protection claim” even by a criminal suspect
• noting that the decision whether to prosecute is ill-suited to judicial .review
• reasoning that “a police officer’s decisions regarding whom to investigate and how to investigate are matters that necessarily involve discretion[,] and the “class-of-one theory [is] a ‘poor fit’ in a context that involved discretionary decisionmaking” (citation omitted)
• reasoning that “a police officer’s decisions regarding whom to investigate and how to investigate are matters that necessarily involve discretion[,] and the “class-of-one theory [is] a ‘poor fit’ in a context that involved discretionary decisionmaking” (citation omitted)
• reasoning that “a police officer’s decisions regarding whom to investigate and how to investigate are matters that necessarily involve discretion[,] and the “class-of-one theory [is] a ‘poor fit’ in a context that involved discretionary decisionmaking” (citation omitted)
• assuming “a claim of selective investigation or harassment may . . . run afoul of the Constitution if it flows from [an] impermissible motive[],” but concluding the target of a police investigation did not produce a submissible equal protection claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).