65 Cited authorities

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
578 U.S. 330 (2016) Cited 7,436 times 437 Legal Analyses
Holding that a statutory violation, without more, did not give rise to Article III standing
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (1992) Cited 27,900 times 138 Legal Analyses
Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"
Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env't
523 U.S. 83 (1998) Cited 10,765 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court "act ultra vires" when it assumes "hypothetical jurisdiction" in order to rule on the merits
U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Committee
489 U.S. 749 (1989) Cited 1,920 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that disclosure of "[o]fficial information that sheds light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties falls squarely within [FOIA's] statutory purpose"
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman
455 U.S. 363 (1982) Cited 2,031 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that an allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff organization "has had to devote significant resources to identify and counteract the defendant's" illegal practices was sufficient to confer standing to the organization in its own right at the pleading stage
Federal Election Comm'n v. Akins
524 U.S. 11 (1998) Cited 782 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that inability to procure information to which Congress has created a right in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 qualifies as concrete injury satisfying Article III's standing requirement
Public Citizen v. Department of Justice
491 U.S. 440 (1989) Cited 789 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff advocacy organizations' inability to obtain information that Congress made subject to disclosure under the Federal Advisory Committee Act "constitutes a sufficiently distinct injury to provide standing to sue"
United States Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
510 U.S. 487 (1994) Cited 667 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, although the requesting unions' interest in obtaining the home addresses of agency employees “might allow the unions to communicate more effectively with employees, ... it would not appreciably further the citizens' right to be informed about what their government is up to”
McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.
298 U.S. 178 (1936) Cited 5,370 times
Holding that a plaintiff, when challenged, must provide "competent proof" supporting jurisdictional claim
Primate Protection League v. Tulane Ed. Fund
500 U.S. 72 (1991) Cited 474 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a statute permitting removal if the defendant is "[a]ny officer of the United States or [of] any agency thereof" "permits removal by anyone who is an ‘officer’ either ‘of the United States’ or of one of its agencies" (alterations in original) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) )
Section 1331 - Federal question
28 U.S.C. § 1331 Cited 97,599 times 135 Legal Analyses
Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
Section 1447 - Procedure after removal generally
28 U.S.C. § 1447 Cited 33,156 times 110 Legal Analyses
Holding that with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"
Section 1681 - Congressional findings and statement of purpose
15 U.S.C. § 1681 Cited 6,316 times 190 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the need to protect "the consumer's right to privacy"
Section 1681b - Permissible purposes of consumer reports
15 U.S.C. § 1681b Cited 1,749 times 101 Legal Analyses
Granting permission to obtain credit report where person "intends to use the information, as a potential investor or servicer, or current insurer, in connection with a valuation of, or an assessment of the credit or prepayment risks associated with, an existing credit obligation"

Teske, Courtnie v. Great Wolf Resorts Holdings, Inc.

65 Cited authorities

Holding that a statutory violation, without more, did not give rise to Article III standing

Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

Holding that a court "act ultra vires" when it assumes "hypothetical jurisdiction" in order to rule on the merits

Holding that disclosure of "[o]fficial information that sheds light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties falls squarely within [FOIA's] statutory purpose"

Holding that an allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff organization "has had to devote significant resources to identify and counteract the defendant's" illegal practices was sufficient to confer standing to the organization in its own right at the pleading stage

Holding that inability to procure information to which Congress has created a right in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 qualifies as concrete injury satisfying Article III's standing requirement

Holding that plaintiff advocacy organizations' inability to obtain information that Congress made subject to disclosure under the Federal Advisory Committee Act "constitutes a sufficiently distinct injury to provide standing to sue"

Holding that, although the requesting unions' interest in obtaining the home addresses of agency employees “might allow the unions to communicate more effectively with employees, ... it would not appreciably further the citizens' right to be informed about what their government is up to”

Holding that a plaintiff, when challenged, must provide "competent proof" supporting jurisdictional claim

Holding that a statute permitting removal if the defendant is "[a]ny officer of the United States or [of] any agency thereof" "permits removal by anyone who is an ‘officer’ either ‘of the United States’ or of one of its agencies" (alterations in original) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) )

Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

Holding that with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"

Recognizing the need to protect "the consumer's right to privacy"

Granting permission to obtain credit report where person "intends to use the information, as a potential investor or servicer, or current insurer, in connection with a valuation of, or an assessment of the credit or prepayment risks associated with, an existing credit obligation"