constitutional equal protection violation in Maine

2022Marshall, 2015 ME 135 , ,r 30, 125 A.3d 1141 ; Polk v. Town ofLubec, 2000 ME 152 , ,r 14, 756 A.2d 510 ("In order to establish a constitutional equal protection violation based on selective prosecution or selective enforcement, a plaintiff must at a minimum establish 'that the challenged decision ... had a 'discriminatory effect and that 42 it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. 1" ) ; see also Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598,608 (1985).

2022Marshall, 2015 ME 135 , ,r 30, 125 A.3d 1141 ; Polk v. Town ofLubec, 2000 ME 152 , ,r 14, 756 A.2d 510 ("In order to establish a constitutional equal protection violation based on selective prosecution or selective enforcement, a plaintiff must at a minimum establish 'that the challenged decision ... had a 'discriminatory effect and that 42 it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. 1" ) ; see also Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598,608 (1985).

2009Whether the DEP violated the petitioner's right to equal protection. 9 "The department shall consist of the Board of Environmental Protection ... and of a Commissioner of Environmental Protection." 38 M.R.S. § 341-A(2). 10 Finally, petitioner argues that the DEP violated its right to equal protection by "treating it differently from other temporarily out-of-service facilities, presumably because it is located on a sensitive geologic area and because of its tank design." (Pet'r Br. at 60.) Petitioner's argument appears to be based on "selective enforcement." (Pet'r Br. at 62.) In order to estab

2000C.Equal Protection ¶ 13 Polk first seeks monetary damages for the alleged violation of his right to equal protection, contending that by “aggressively enforcing” the screening requirements and by imposing “illegal conditions” on his application, the Town treated Polk differently than other applicants. ¶ 14 In order to establish a constitutional equal protection violation based on selective prosecution or selective enforcement, a plaintiff must at a minimum establish “that the challenged decision ... had a ‘discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.’ ” Willhauc

2022Marshall, 2015 ME 135 , ,r 30, 125 A.3d 1141 ; Polk v. Town ofLubec, 2000 ME 152 , ,r 14, 756 A.2d 510 ("In order to establish a constitutional equal protection violation based on selective prosecution or selective enforcement, a plaintiff must at a minimum establish 'that the challenged decision ... had a 'discriminatory effect and that 42 it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. 1" ) ; see also Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598,608 (1985).

2000C.Equal Protection ¶ 13 Polk first seeks monetary damages for the alleged violation of his right to equal protection, contending that by “aggressively enforcing” the screening requirements and by imposing “illegal conditions” on his application, the Town treated Polk differently than other applicants. ¶ 14 In order to establish a constitutional equal protection violation based on selective prosecution or selective enforcement, a plaintiff must at a minimum establish “that the challenged decision ... had a ‘discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.’ ” Willhauc

2009Whether the DEP violated the petitioner's right to equal protection. 9 "The department shall consist of the Board of Environmental Protection ... and of a Commissioner of Environmental Protection." 38 M.R.S. § 341-A(2). 10 Finally, petitioner argues that the DEP violated its right to equal protection by "treating it differently from other temporarily out-of-service facilities, presumably because it is located on a sensitive geologic area and because of its tank design." (Pet'r Br. at 60.) Petitioner's argument appears to be based on "selective enforcement." (Pet'r Br. at 62.) In order to estab

2004Associates v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 2001 ME 89 , 1 11, 773 A.2d 439, 443 (citations and quotations 6 However, a constitutional equal protection violation can be based on selective enforcement ofa Statute if the party establishes that it “had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.” Polk v. Town of Lubec, 2000 ME 152 , { 14, 756 A.2d 510, 513 . 11 omitted.) Here, Plaintiff Northern’s business was temporarily interrupted for a few weeks.

2004Associates v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 2001 ME 89 , 1 11, 773 A.2d 439, 443 (citations and quotations 6 However, a constitutional equal protection violation can be based on selective enforcement ofa Statute if the party establishes that it “had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.” Polk v. Town of Lubec, 2000 ME 152 , { 14, 756 A.2d 510, 513 . 11 omitted.) Here, Plaintiff Northern’s business was temporarily interrupted for a few weeks.

2003Ass’n, 1998 ME 211, ¶ 6 , 717 A.2d 372, 375 (quoting Harmon v. Emerson, 425 A.2d 978, 982 (Me.1981)). [¶ 16] “In order to establish a constitutional equal protection violation based on selective prosecution or selective enforcement, a plaintiff must at a minimum establish that the challenged decision ... had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.” Polk v. Town of Lubec, 2000 ME 152, ¶ 14 , 756 A.2d 510, 513 (quotation marks omitted) (finding no evidence of disparate treatment or discriminatory motivation because the plaintiffs allegations were con-clusor

2003Ass’n, 1998 ME 211, ¶ 6 , 717 A.2d 372, 375 (quoting Harmon v. Emerson, 425 A.2d 978, 982 (Me.1981)). [¶ 16] “In order to establish a constitutional equal protection violation based on selective prosecution or selective enforcement, a plaintiff must at a minimum establish that the challenged decision ... had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.” Polk v. Town of Lubec, 2000 ME 152, ¶ 14 , 756 A.2d 510, 513 (quotation marks omitted) (finding no evidence of disparate treatment or discriminatory motivation because the plaintiffs allegations were con-clusor

2003Ass’n, 1998 ME 211, ¶ 6 , 717 A.2d 372, 375 (quoting Harmon v. Emerson, 425 A.2d 978, 982 (Me.1981)). [¶ 16] “In order to establish a constitutional equal protection violation based on selective prosecution or selective enforcement, a plaintiff must at a minimum establish that the challenged decision ... had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.” Polk v. Town of Lubec, 2000 ME 152, ¶ 14 , 756 A.2d 510, 513 (quotation marks omitted) (finding no evidence of disparate treatment or discriminatory motivation because the plaintiffs allegations were con-clusor

2001In order to establish a constitutional equal protection violation based on i selective enforcement, Dionne must establish that “the challenged decision. .. hada discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.’” Polk v Town of Lubec, 2000 ME 152 , { 14, 756 A.2d 510, 513 ; see also Tri-State Rubbish v. Town of New Gloucester, 634 A.2d 1284, 1287 (Me. 1993)("A selective prosecution claim requires a showing of discriminatory intent.”).

2001“Unequal application of a law to those who are entitled to be treated alike is not a denial of equal protection unless there is shown to be an element of intentional or purposeful discrimination.” Aucella v. Town of Winslow, 583 A.2d 215, 216 (Me. 1990).