Squaw Valley Development Co. v. Goldberg’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 13 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[w]here an equal protection claim is based on selective enforcement of valid laws, a plaintiff can show that the defendants' rational basis for selectively enforcing the law is a pretext for an impermissible motive.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture · Hardesty v. Sacramento Metro. Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.

2. “Under Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the first step in the qualified immunity analysis is “to consider the materials submitted in support of, and in opposition to, summary judgment in order to decide whether a constitutional right would be violated if all facts are viewed in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.” Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 909 (9th Cir.2001). “If no constitutional violation is shown, the inquiry ends.” Cunningham v. City of Wenatchee, 345 F.3d 802, 810 (9th Cir.2003). On the other hand, if “the parties’ submissions” create a triable issue of whether a constitutional violation occurred, the second question is “whether the right was clearly established.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 . A constitutional right is clearly established when “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Id. at 202, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Megargee v. Wittman

3. “present[ed] no evidence that any other discharger is of comparable size, has a comparable history of non-compliance, engages in a comparable level of activity on its land, and has a comparable history of administrative action being ineffective. As the district court repeatedly stated, Squaw Valley is not comparing `apples to apples.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Squaw Valley Development Co. v. Goldberg