Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 980 FSUPP2D 302 - Reardon v. Keating

Reardon v. Keating’s Empirical Analysis

2013

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
January 2016
most recently cited

1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1451 (Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mapp v. Ohio · Carnegie v. United States

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he existence of persons in similar circumstances who received more favorable treatment than the plaintiff in a class-of-one case is offered to provide an inference that the plaintiff was intentionally singled out for reasons that so lack any reasonable nexus with a legitimate governmental policy that an improper purpose — whether personal or otherwise— is all but certain. Accordingly, to succeed on a class of one claim, a plaintiff must establish that (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.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “references to retaliation [were] conclusory boilerplate, without foundation or support in the [complaint’s] factual allegations from which an intent to retaliate could plausibly be inferred”); Mateo v. Bristow, No. 12-CV-5052, 2013 WL 3863865 , at (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2013) (denying a motion to dismiss where the complaint pleaded facts supporting”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.