Susan Demuria and Michael Demuria v. Albert F. Hawkes and Judith A. Marshall

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, to state a valid equal protection “class of one” claim, a plaintiff must allege (1) that he has intentionally been treated differently from others similarly situated, and (2) that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment
• noting that the legal standards of review for motions to dismiss and motions for judgment 15 on the pleadings “are indistinguishable”
• affirming district court’s finding that complaint did not allege “conscience-shocking” governmental action
• sustaining complaint in which plaintiffs stated that they were subjected to different standard of police protection than that afforded to other residents and where factual allegations supported conclusion that defendant's conduct was in violation of his duties as police officer
• sustaining complaint in which plaintiffs stated that they were subjected to different standard of police protection than that afforded to other residents and where factual allegations supported conclusion that defendant's conduct was in violation of his duties as police officer
• “[T]he legal standards for review of motions pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(c) are indistinguishable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).