Filed July 15, 2014
To start, “the minimal standing requirements of Article III” require a plaintiff show: (1) . . . an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Englewood, 671 F.3d 564, 580 (6th Cir. 2012). Standing “may exist solely by virtue of statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing.”
Filed December 24, 2012
To start, “The minimal standing requirements of Article III” require a plaintiff show: (1) . . . an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Englewood, 671 F.3d 564, 580 (6th Cir. 2012). Standing “may 2 Other statutes demonstrate the Michigan legislature’s ability to impose an actual damages requirement when it wants to.
Filed January 18, 2013
2:12-cv-12831-GCS-RSW Doc # 35 Filed 01/18/13 Pg 9 of 36 Pg ID 441 ix CONTROLLING AND MOST IMPORTANT AUTHORITY Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); White v. U.S., 601 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 2010). Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963); U.S. Dep’t. of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164 (1991); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975); Beaudry v. TeleCheck Servs., Inc., 579 F.3d 702 (6th Cir. 2009), cert. denied 130 S. Ct. 2379 (2010); In re Carter, 553 F.3d 979 (6th Cir. 2009); Klimas v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns., Inc., 465 F.3d 271 (6th Cir. 2006); Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Englewood, 671 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2012); Resnick v. AvMed, Inc., 693 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2012); Sterk v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, 672 F.3d 535 (7th Cir. 2012); Van Alstyne v. Elec. Scriptorium, Ltd., 560 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2009); Deacon v. Pandora Media, Inc., No. 11- cv-04674 SBA, 2012 WL 4497796 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012); Doe 1 v. AOL, LLC, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (N.D. Cal. 2010); Kinder v. United Bancorp Inc., No. 11-cv-10440, 2012 WL 4490874 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2012). In re Acquisition of Land for Virginia Park Neighborhood Development Program, Michigan A- 4-2, 283 N.W. 2d 771 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979); Doe 1 v. AOL, LLC., 719 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Conn. Nat’l. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (1992); Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (2004);
Filed October 18, 2019
“A court reviewing a motion for summary judgment cannot weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations.” Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Englewood, 671 F.3d 564, 569 (6th Cir. 2012). “Instead, the evidence must be viewed, and all reasonable inferences drawn, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”