Difference between revisions of "Class of one"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: "Class of one" is a legal argument under the Equal Protection Clause whereby a plaintiff prevails by proving that it "has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly ...) |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→See also: clean up) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | "Class of one" is a legal argument under the [[Equal Protection Clause]] whereby a plaintiff prevails by proving that it "has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment."<ref>''Willowbrook v. Olech'', 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000).</ref> | + | "Class of one" is a legal argument under the [[Equal Protection Clause]] whereby a plaintiff prevails by proving that it "has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment."<ref>''[[Willowbrook v. Olech]]'', 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000).</ref> |
Judge Michael McConnell has embraced a "class of one" argument in concurrence<ref>''Christian Heritage Acad. v. Okla. Secondary Sch. Activities Ass'n'', 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 8186 (10th Cir. Apr. 9, 2007).</ref> | Judge Michael McConnell has embraced a "class of one" argument in concurrence<ref>''Christian Heritage Acad. v. Okla. Secondary Sch. Activities Ass'n'', 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 8186 (10th Cir. Apr. 9, 2007).</ref> | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | == See also == | ||
| + | |||
| + | * ''Pignanelli v. Pueblo School Dist. No. 60'', (C.A.10 (Colo.)) | ||
[[Category:Law]] | [[Category:Law]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Fourteenth Amendment]] | ||
Latest revision as of 20:32, June 23, 2016
"Class of one" is a legal argument under the Equal Protection Clause whereby a plaintiff prevails by proving that it "has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment."[1]
Judge Michael McConnell has embraced a "class of one" argument in concurrence[2]
References
- ↑ Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000).
- ↑ Christian Heritage Acad. v. Okla. Secondary Sch. Activities Ass'n, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 8186 (10th Cir. Apr. 9, 2007).
See also
- Pignanelli v. Pueblo School Dist. No. 60, (C.A.10 (Colo.))