Sherley v. Sebelius

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the increased competition that plaintiffs face is “substantial enough to deem the injury to them imminent”
• similarly finding doctors have competitor standing after agency loosened restrictions and thereby allowed increased competition in upstream market for grants that fund research
• similarly finding doctors have competitor standing after agency loosened restrictions and thereby allowed increased competition in upstream market for grants that fund research
• stem-cell research plaintiffs challenging regulations that increased competition for research grants had standing; redressability \clear\
• to “shift[] injury from ‘conjectural’ to ‘imminent,’ ” petitioner must show there is a “ ‘substantial... probability of injury’ ”
• “[A]n actual or imminent increase in competition . . . will almost certainly cause an injury in fact.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).