Russell Kiser v. Lili Reitz

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 established an intent to engage in arguably-protected conduct because he previously engaged in the conduct and intended to do so in the future
• explaining that an injury is more concrete when the same conduct has drawn enforcement in the past
• holding the second McKay factor met when the letter explained the enforcing body had “investigated his practice and determined [it was] in violation of the regulations”
• explaining that plaintiff shows injury‐in‐fact when he alleges intention to engage in course of conduct arguably affected with constitutional interest but proscribed by statute, and there is credible threat of prosecution
• finding that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged an intent to advertise his general surgery services where he “alleged that he has advertised . . . services in the past and that he intends to do so in the future”
• calling “fitness of the record for review” a matter of “prudential ripeness” (citation and quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).