Also known as: distinctions · distinguish · distinguished · distinguishing · distinguishing precedent
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A legal differentiation between categories of persons, conduct, or things that carries distinct legal consequences. The line drawn determines which standard of review, procedural rule, or liability theory applies to each category.
Dominic Drake, a 51-year-old officer still passing all fitness tests, challenges the city's rule ending employment at age 50. The court applies rational basis review because age receives no suspect classification. The distinction between age and immutable traits like race means the rule survives as long as it rationally advances a legitimate goal of maintaining physical readiness.
Dover Bank amends its articles to authorize two series of preferred stock. One series carries cumulative dividends and voting rights while the other does not. The statute requires a distinguishing designation and full description of each series before issuance so that identical shares within a series receive identical treatment.
Danielle Dixon, a private citizen, sues a newspaper for a false report about her business practices. Because she is not a public figure, she need not prove actual malice. The distinction between private and public plaintiffs allows the state to impose liability on a negligence standard while still barring presumed damages absent actual malice.
Dominion Capital attacks a campaign-finance statute both on its face and as applied to its own advertisements. The court notes that the facial-as-applied distinction affects only the breadth of the remedy, not whether the constitutional claim itself may be raised.
Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation with an annual budget of about $12 million. Most of its funds come from donations by individuals, though it accepts a small portion from for-profit corporations. In January 2008, Citizens United released a 90-minute documentary film entitled Hillary: The Movie. The film mentions Senator Hillary Clinton by name and depicts interviews with political commentators, most of them critical of her. Hillary was released in theaters and on DVD, but Citizens United wanted to increase distribution by making the film available through video-on-demand. In December 2007, a cable company offered to make Hillary available on a video-on-demand channel called Elections '08 for a payment of $1.2 million. The proposal was to make the film available to viewers free of charge. To promote the video-on-demand offering, Citizens United produced two 10-second ads and one 30-second ad. Each ad includes a short statement about Senator Clinton followed by the name of the movie and the movie's website address. Citizens United desired to promote the offering by running the advertisements on broadcast and cable television within 30 days of primary elections. Before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, federal law prohibited corporations from using general treasury funds to make independent expenditures that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate in connection with certain federal elections. BCRA §203 amended the law to prohibit any electioneering communication. An electioneering communication is any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office and is made within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election when publicly distributed so that it can be received by 50,000 or more persons in a relevant state. Concerned about possible civil and criminal penalties for violating 2 U.S.C. §441b, Citizens United filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in December 2007. It sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that §441b is unconstitutional as applied to Hillary and that BCRA's disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements are unconstitutional as applied to Hillary and the ads. The District Court denied Citizens United's motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the Federal Election Commission's motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction. The case was reargued after the Court requested supplemental briefs addressing whether Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the relevant portion of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission should be overruled.
View caseDorothy Daniels, a grandmother, seeks to live with her son's children in a single-family zone. The ordinance permits a grandmother to reside with her daughter's children but not her son's. The court holds the distinction between maternal and paternal lines irrational and therefore unconstitutional.
Diana Delgado faces delinquency charges and the state seeks to prove the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. The court rejects the civil-criminal distinction as a reason to relax due-process protections, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
A distinction triggers heightened scrutiny only when it classifies on the basis of a suspect or quasi-suspect trait such as race or gender. Age-based lines receive only rational-basis review because age is not a suspect classification.
Supporting sources
The statute requires a distinguishing designation and a description of terms so that shares within the same class or series receive identical preferences, rights, and limitations.
Supporting sources
Private plaintiffs may recover under a fault standard chosen by the state and need not prove actual malice, but they still may not obtain presumed or punitive damages without that showing.
Supporting sources
No. The distinction concerns only the breadth of the remedy a court may award, not whether the claim itself may be asserted.
Supporting sources
…or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving the life of the mother," the legal justification for the procedure. The…