green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
10.6 score
“he selective prosecution defense is an issue for the court rather than the jury.”
Treatment trajectory · 2015 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2015
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Jose Machorro-Xochicale
he selective prosecution defense is an issue for the court rather than the jury.
cited
Cited "see"
M. R. v. Ridley School District
See Ridley School District v. M.R., — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2309 , 191 L.Ed.2d 977 (2015).
discussed
Cited "see"
Coker v. Select Energy Services, LLC
See Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2311 , 191 L.Ed.2d 977 (2015) (granting petition for certiorari seeking review of the questions of whether a case becomes moot when a plaintiff receives an offer of complete relief on his claim).
cited
Cited "see"
Delia Webster v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC
See Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co., 768 F.3d 871 (9th Cir.2014), cert. granted, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 2311 , 191 L.Ed.2d 977 (2015).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. ACT, Inc.
See Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2311, 2311 , 191 L.Ed.2d 977 (2015) (granting petition for certiorari seeking review of the questions of whether a case becomes moot when a plaintiff receives an .offer of complete relief on his claim, and whether the answer to that question differs in a putative class action); see also Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Campbell-Ewald, — U.S. -, — S.Ct. -, -, — L.Ed.2d-, (No. 14-859), 2015 WL 241891 , at *i (filed Jan. 16, 2015).
discussed
Cited "see"
Greg Adkisson v. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc
See Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co., 768 F.3d 871, 879-80 (9th Cir.2014), cert. granted, No. 14-857, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2311 , 191 L.Ed.2d 977 , 2015 WL 246885 (U.S. May 18, 2015) (commenting in dicta that Yearsley is limited to “claims arising out of property damage caused by public works projects”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
RIDLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT
v.
M.R., et ux., as Parents of E.R., a Minor.
v.
M.R., et ux., as Parents of E.R., a Minor.
No. 13–1547..
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 18, 2015.
135 S. Ct. 2309
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: Eighth Circuit (1)
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.