Steinburg v. Chesterfield County Planning Commission

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 plaintiff may challenge even a facially valid policy against personal attacks if the policy is used to chill or silence speech in a given circumstance
• rejecting viewpoint- discrimination claim based on comparators because the plaintiff “was treated no differently” than the other speakers
• affirming denial of motion to amend complaint where district court determined amendment would be futile because it “would not survive summary judgment”
• stating that a court need not give leave to amend where “the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would have been futile” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• upholding a “content- neutral policy against personal attacks” against a facial challenge
• first quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), then quoting Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).