Russell v. City of Ashland

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that Konop’s simultaneous transmission requirement does not place packet switching technology outside the ambit of the Wiretap Act
• holding that deferring issues of standing until after class certification may be appropriate where a claim brought by an individual with standing “is typical of those individuals whose claims arise under the laws of the other states.”
• finding that named plaintiffs did not have standing to assert claims from states in which they did not reside or make a relevant purchase
• noting that courts have differed as to “whether differences between a 27 named plaintiff's claims and the unnamed class members' claims should be treated as a standing 1 23”
• dismissing third party beneficiary 2 implied warranty claim where plaintiffs failed to plead facts establishing any such 3 relationship
• reviewing cases that have considered standing before and after class certification

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).