Robbins v. Becker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 3 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A class-of-one plaintiff must therefore provide a specific and detailed account of the nature of the preferred treatment of the favored class, especially when the state actors exercise broad discretion to balance a number of legitimate considerations.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mensie v. City of Little Rock · Chemsol, LLC v. City of Sibley

2. “persons alleged to have been treated more favorably must be identical or directly comparable to the plaintiff in all material respects.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mensie v. City of Little Rock · Harrington v. Strong

3. “forms of state action ... which by their nature involve discretionary decisionmaking based on a vast array of subjective, individualized assessments. In such cases the rule that people should be "treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions" is not violated when one person is treated differently from others, because treating like individuals differently is an accepted consequence of the discretion granted. Engquist v. Or. Dep't of Agric. , 553 U.S. 591 , 602-04, 128 S.Ct. 2146 , 170 L.Ed.2d 975 (2008) (illustrating the point with a hypothetical involving a traffic officer - on a busy highway frequented by speeders - exercising the discretion inherent in deciding which vehicle operator to issue a speeding ticket). Applying Engquist's rationale to a "police officer's decisions regarding whom to investigate and how to investigate," we held "that while a police officer's investigative decisions remain subject to traditional class-based equal protection analysis, they may not be attacked in a class-of-one equal protection claim" because investigative decisions "necessarily involve discretion." Flowers v. City of Minneapolis, Minn. , 558 F.3d 794 , 799-800 (8th Cir. 2009). * * * The threshold inquiry in the class-of-one equal protection claim is whether plaintiffs are similarly situated to others who allegedly received preferential treatment. Domina v. Van Pelt , 235 F.3d 1091 , 1099 (8th Cir. 2000). Absent such a threshold showing, the plaintiffs do not have a viable equ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Chemsol, LLC v. City of Sibley