Docket nos. 13–1339 Argument Oral argument Date decided May 16, 2016 | Citations 578 U.S. ___ (more) Opinion announcement Opinion announcement Location United States of America | |
 | ||
Similar Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, Wal‑Mart Stores - Inc v Dukes, Bank Markazi v Peterson, Foster v Chatman, Evenwel v Abbott | ||
Spokeo inc v robins oral argument november 02 2015
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court vacated and remanded a ruling by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the basis that the Ninth Circuit had not properly determined whether the plaintiff has suffered an "injury-in-fact" when analyzing whether he had standing to bring his case in federal court. The Court did not discuss whether "the Ninth Circuit’s ultimate conclusion — that Robins adequately alleged an injury in fact — was correct."
Contents
- Spokeo inc v robins oral argument november 02 2015
- Scotus ruckus spokeo inc v robins part 1
- References
Scotus ruckus spokeo inc v robins part 1
References
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins Wikipedia(Text) CC BY-SA