Veiga v. Suntrust Bank

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that for a motion to dismiss “allegations of harm were sufficient to ground a First Amendment retaliation claim without discussing whether that harm had a chilling effect”
• upholding the dismissal of an equal protection claim because plaintiff failed to allege that EOP 28 inmates were similarly situated to other inmates
• upholding the dismissal of an equal protection claim because plaintiff failed to allege that EOP 15 inmates were similarly situated to other inmates
• affirming district court’s dismissal of prisoner’s equal protection claim because he 11 failed to allege facts suggesting that “Enhanced Out Patient” inmates were similarly 12 situated to other inmates

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).