Josh Finkelman v. National Football League

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a plaintiff must do more than offer conclusory assertions of economic injury in order to establish standing
• holding that the plaintiff failed to allege injury in fact where he “took no meaningful action” to pursue the alleged opportunity
• holding that the plaintiff’s injury, an inability to buy fair-price tickets to the Super Bowl, was not fairly traceable to the NFL’s actions because the plaintiff sought tickets only in the resale market
• stating that the Twombly plaintiffs “looked around and saw conduct consistent with a conspiracy, but they saw no facts that indicated more plausibly that a conspiracy actually existed”
• recognizing a \federal court's obligation to assure itself that it has subject matter jurisdiction\
• stating that a plaintiff fails to show “injury-in-fact” when it is based on a “chain of contingencies” or “mere speculation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).