SAGE, MERLIN G., PEOPLE v

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that \changes in the legal background that do not affect Article III or subject-matter jurisdiction are an entirely different matter\ from those that do affect jurisdiction
• finding that plaintiff had standing, as “[p]roviding context may be more valuable than contesting accuracy”
• describing Subparagraph (A) as protecting the chance to “convince an employer to revisit its decision”
• finding standing for § 1681b(b)(3) informational injury where plaintiff was prevented from providing context to the contents of her consumer report before adverse action taken
• explaining in an FCRA case that by not being given a copy of her consumer report before an adverse action, a plaintiff is denied the opportunity to respond to a potential employer’s concerns
• finding standing and ruling that “Spokeo does not require a contrary result”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).