Osborne v. Grussing

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that municipalities “routinely act on the basis of information provided by private parties who harbor a grudge,” but when “such a complaint results in enforcement action, we do not impute the complainant’s ulterior motive to the government enforcers”
• finding “the discovery issue was not properly preserved” when the party did not file what is now referred to as a Rule 56(d) motion
• “[D]ue to inadequate resources, [Planning and Zoning Office] staff investigate violations of the ordinance only when a citizen files a complaint against a particular landowner.”
• free-world plaintiff's public criticism of county's lax enforcement of regulations was clearly “First Amendment- protected activity”
• “[D]ue to inadequate resources, [Planning and Zoning Office] staff investigate violations of the ordinance only when a citizen files a complaint against a particular landowner.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).