United States:
Supreme Court Declines To Revisit Spokeo's Standing Rule
12 March 2018
by
Daniel J. McLoon
,
Mauricio Paez
,
Richard Johnson
,
Jonathon Little
,
Todd McClelland
,
Jeff Rabkin
,
Lisa M. Ropple
,
Adam Salter
,
Michiru Takahashi
,
Undine Von Diemar
,
Olivier Haas
,
Jörg Hladjk
and
Anand Varadarajan
Jones Day
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
On January 22, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to revisit the Article III standing
bar that it had established in its pivotal 2016 Spokeo
decision. In the 2016 decision, the High Court reviewed whether the
plaintiff had established standing for alleged violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act by the defendant. The Court announced
that plaintiffs cannot rely solely on statutory violations to
establish Article III standing and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit.
Seeking to have the Ninth Circuit's decision overruled, the
defendant petitioned the Supreme Court, pleading the
Court to resolve the "widespread confusion" over what
types of intangible injuries are capable of being used to establish
standing; however, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case a
second time.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration from United States
Defenses To Contract Damages In New York
KI Legal
Defendants who face breach of contract damages claims can assert several defenses to mitigate, or altogether eliminate, a potential award of damages against them.
Is Premises Liability The Same As Negligence?
Ward and Smith, P.A.
In today's world, we travel all the time. We shop at grocery stores and department stores, we take walks on the sidewalks in our neighborhoods, and we go to large events, such as concerts or weddings, at various venues.
Defamation vs. Free Speech
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs
The concepts of defamation and free speech often collide, raising questions about where the line should be drawn between the right to express oneself and the responsibility...