NB Ex Rel. Peacock v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a plaintiff who had alleged that he needs two inhalers per month “is virtually certain” to engage in the conduct in the future that would subject him to injury
• noting that “at the pleadings stage, ‘the burden imposed’ on plaintiffs to establish standing ‘is not ‘onerous’”
• explaining that a court assessing standing assumes that the plaintiff is right on the merits
• explaining that a “realistic danger” of future harm requires “a likelihood of injury that rises above the level of unadorned speculation” (cleaned up)
• noting that a plaintiff suffered an injury when he was forced to resort to a different form of payment when he was improperly denied Medicaid coverage
• noting that “District of. Columbia law imposes’ the same requirements” as federal law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).