Ross v. Bank of America, N.A. (USA)

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 allege a personal stake in the outcome of the case and a “distinct and palpable” injury (internal quotation marks omitted)
• ruling that antitrust plaintiffs had pled an injury in fact by alleging that “reduced choice and diminished quality result[ed] directly from the defendants’ illegal collusion to constrict the options available” (brackets and ellipsis omitted)
• noting that district courts must consider the Supreme Court’s teachings in TransUnion even if a defendant fails to raise it
• recognizing, in rulemaking context, that party can show prejudice if it could have “mount[ed] a credible challenge” but for the error
• noting that injury for standing purposes “is a low threshold” and “need not be capable of sustaining a valid cause of action”
• stating that injury in fact “is a low threshold,” and “may simply be the fear or anxiety of future harm” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).