Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Travis C. Sayre

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a plaintiff can satisfy the “fairly traceable” requirement by advancing allegations which, if proven allow for the conclusion that the challenged conduct was a “but for” cause of the injury
• noting that courts in the Tenth Circuit “address standing on a claim-by-claim basis”
• noting that it was procedural error for a district court to consider a Rule 12(b)(6) motion in part because the movant “waived the right to file a Rule 12(b) motion by filing an answer.”
• discussing that a Rule 12(c) motion would have been premature where the pleadings were not closed because, although one defendant had filed an answer, two defendants had filed Rule 12(b) motions and had not filed answers (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)
• explaining a plaintiff is not required “to establish that the defendant was the proximate cause of its injury” and need only establish at the pleading stage that the challenged conduct is a “but for” cause of the injury (citations omitted)
• noting that each defendant must answer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).