Supreme Court· 5/16/2016

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins

Citations

578 U.S. 330
136 S. Ct. 1540
194 L. Ed. 2d 635
2016 U.S. LEXIS 3046
84 U.S.L.W. 4263
26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 128
100 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,556

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 bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm, [does not] satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III”
holding that an injury is not concrete where the defendant’s conduct does not “cause harm or present any material risk of harm”
holding that “a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm” does not confer standing
noting that a “bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm” does not satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement
describing that to establish standing, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a concrete and particularized injury
explaining that at the pleading stage, “plaintiff must clearly [] allege facts demonstrating each element” of standing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Alitodelivered, Thomas

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1,784 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

42 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.