Regina Westmoreland v. Reliant Energy Retail Services, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that unlike facial challenges to ordinances, a plaintiff must first demonstrate that the regulation has been applied to them
• noting that while “[m]ost courts have referred to this type of claim as a substantive due process claim,” that “terminol- ogy has contributed to [] confusion” between this type of claim and due process takings claims
• providing a description of the differing ripeness analyses, depending on the constitutional theories asserted and the remedies sought
• discussing different types of “takings” and noting that “often one cannot tell which claim has been brought or which standard is being applied.”
• labeling this claim as an \arbitrary and capricious due process claim\
• labeling this claim as an “arbitrary and capricious due process claim”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).