P asked D to connect their property to the municipal water supply. D conditioned the connection on P granting D a 33-foot easement. P objected, claiming that D only required a 15-foot easement from other property owners seeking access to the water supply. After a 3-month delay, the Village relented and agreed to provide water service with only a 15-foot easement. P sued D claiming that the demand of an additional 18-foot easement violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. P claimed that the 33-foot easement demand was 'irrational and wholly arbitrary'; D's demand was actually motivated by ill will resulting from P's previous filing of an unrelated, successful lawsuit against D; and that D acted either with the intent to deprive P of her rights or in reckless disregard of her rights. The District Court dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a cognizable claim under the Equal Protection Clause. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that a plaintiff can allege an equal protection violation by asserting that state action was motivated solely by a ''spiteful effort to 'get' him for reasons wholly unrelated to any legitimate state objective.'' The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the Equal Protection Clause gives rise to a cause of action on behalf of a 'class of one' where the plaintiff did not allege membership in a class or group.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.