City of Oakland v. Loretta E. Lynch

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that an expected loss of tax revenues constitutes a “constitutionally sufficient” injury for Article III standing
• finding standing for municipality's collateral challenge to forfeiture action against marijuana dispensary because it was not overly speculative that the forfeiture would be ordered and therefore deprive the municipality of tax revenue from the business
• “An expected loss of tax revenue can constitute a sufficient injury [to a city] for purposes of Article III standing.”
• “[The Government’s lawsuit] simply makes evident the Government’s intention to challenge the status quo; any rights, obligations, and legal consequences are to be determined later by a judge.”
• “A suit brought by a plaintiff without Article III standing is not a ‘case or 6 controversy,’ and Article III federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over such suits.”
• “A suit brought by a plaintiff without Article III standing is not a ‘case or 10 controversy,’ and Article III federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over such suits.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).