Advanced Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Group LLC v. Tricia Krenek

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• determining plaintiffs lacked standing despite arguing that a misleading letter caused them to be “annoyed or intimidated”
• “the Supreme Court never thought that having one’s nose out of joint and one’s dander up creates a case or controversy”
• a violation which causes a plaintiff “to pay debts they did not owe” constitutes “a concrete injury that might support . . . standing to sue”
• “[T]he asserted violation of a substantive right conferred by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not guarantee the plaintiff's standing. There must still be a concrete injury.”
• \[T] his court has recently held that the asserted violation of a substantive right conferred by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not guarantee the plaintiff's standing.\
• “[T]he asserted violation of a substantive right conferred by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not guarantee the plaintiff’s standing. There must still be a concrete injury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).