Ruston v. Town Board’s Empirical Analysis
610 F.3d 55 · 2010
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 8 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · United States v. Salerno · Village of Willowbrook v. Olech · Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) no rational person could regard the circumstances of the plaintiff to differ from those of a comparator to a degree that would justify the differential treatment on the basis of a legitimate government policy; and (ii) the similarity in circumstances and difference in treatment are sufficient to exclude the possibility that the defendants acted on the basis of a mistake.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As we hold that the Rustons have failed to adequately allege a “class of one” claim regardless of whether the governmental action at issue was non-discretionary we have no need to explore Engquist.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a 'class of one' claim is adequately pled ('albeit barely' so) even without specification of others similarly situated,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.