Milillo v. Canfield

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a prima facie case under the FHA requires that an impermissible consideration “was a significant factor” in the decision taken
• noting that “the granting or denial of injunctive relief lies within the court’s discretion”
• noting that a conspiracy “need not be shown by proof of an explicit agreement but can be established by showing that the ‘parties have a tacit understanding to carry out the prohibited conduct’”
• explaining that discriminatory intent may be demonstrated “by showing that animus against the protected group was a significant factor in the position taken by ... those to whom the decision-makers were knowingly responsive.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• finding relevant that the municipality “cited potential traffic and noise problems among their reasons for opposing home synagogues but tolerated existing traffic and noise caused by secular uses”
• noting this context is relevant to a “totality of the circumstances” inquiry in determining whether a defendant acted with discriminatory intent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).