Maya v. Centex Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that, 14 for purposes of Article III standing, plaintiffs need not “demonstrate that defendants’ actions are 15 the ‘proximate cause’ of plaintiffs’ injuries
• concluding that, for 15 purposes of Article III standing, plaintiffs need not “demonstrate that defendants’ actions are the 16 ‘proximate cause’ of plaintiffs’ injuries”
• concluding that, for 1 purposes of Article III standing, plaintiffs need not “demonstrate that defendants’ actions are the 2 ‘proximate cause’ of plaintiffs’ injuries”
• holding that “Twombly and Iqbal are ill-suited to application in the constitutional standing context”
• holding that in evaluating motion 17 to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that plaintiff lacks constitutional 18 standing to sue, courts may consider evidence outside the pleadings
• holding that plaintiff may not rely on “bare legal conclusion[s]” to assert causation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).