Entm't Prods., Inc. v. Shelby Cnty.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “standing” to “sue under a contract” is “really an issue of ‘contract interpretation’ that goes to the merits of the claim” and is different from Article III standing
• recognizing that “standing” to “sue under a contract” is “really an issue of ‘contract interpretation’ that goes to the merits of the claim” and is different from Article III standing
• noting that “Williams based its ‘no standing’ holding on a Louisiana case that treated the issue as one of failure to state a claim.”
• distinguishing Summit and holding that, even if a party lacked constitutional standing over one claim, leave to amend was still proper because there was a separate claim in the suit that the court had jurisdiction to hear
• quoting, inter alia, Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483, 492 (1987)
• “We thus do not view the fact that the [plaintiffs] were not a named insured in the policy covering property they owned as a defect that goes to Article III standing.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).