American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entertainment, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court’s standing determinations are reviewed de novo, while factual findings underlying standing are reviewed for clear error in Endangered Species Act citizen-suit
• noting that organization cannot establish standing merely by seeking to “vindicate [its] own value preferences through the judicial process”
• noting that district court “held a six-week bench trial, heard testimony from approximately thirty witnesses, [and] reviewed hundreds of documents entered into the evidentiary record”
• explaining that defendant must be “obligated to disclose certain information that the plaintiff has a right to obtain”
• explaining that injury to an organization’s advocacy goals only suffices “where the defendant’s conduct is ,.. clearly at loggerheads with the organization’s mission” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• finding that organization lacked standing where it provided extensive information about its advocacy expenditures but failed to show that the defendant’s actions actually caused the public misimpression that motivated the expenditures in the first place

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).