context: . Although the Armstrong and Bass Courts focused on similarly situated as part of the discriminatory effect analysis, evidence of differential treatment is also probative of discriminatory intent.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 730 F.3d 1142, 1158
citation_a.parenthetical: indicating that, in a civil case where discrimination is alleged, preferential treatment of a similarly situated person can be evidence of discriminatory intent
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Smith, 231 F.3d 800, 809 (11th Cir.2000) ("recognizing] that the nature of the two prongs of a selective prosecution showing are such that they -will often overlap to some extent”); cf. Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 1158 (9th Cir.2013) (indicating that, in a civil case where discrimination is alleged, preferential treatment of a similarly situated person can be evidence of discriminatory intent).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 231 F.3d 800, 809
citation_b.parenthetical: "recognizing] that the nature of the two prongs of a selective prosecution showing are such that they -will often overlap to some extent"
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Smith, 231 F.3d 800, 809 (11th Cir.2000) ("recognizing] that the nature of the two prongs of a selective prosecution showing are such that they -will often overlap to some extent”); cf. Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 1158 (9th Cir.2013) (indicating that, in a civil case where discrimination is alleged, preferential treatment of a similarly situated person can be evidence of discriminatory intent).