Stanley v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the plaintiff had standing in part because he had alleged that he “regularly purchased [the products] throughout the relevant period” of mislabeling
• noting that the Second Circuit has “repeatedly described [the injury-in-fact] requirement as a low threshold”
• noting that “where a complaint is dismissed for lack of Article III standing, the dismissal must be without prejudice, rather than with prejudice” (quotation omitted)
• noting that, at the 11 pleading stage, “[w]e have repeatedly described [this] requirement as a ‘low 12 threshold’” (citation omitted)
• stating that the injury-in-fact requirement is “a low threshold,” which “helps to ensure that the plaintiff has a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy” (citations omitted)
• stating that the injury-in-fact requirement is “a low threshold,” which “helps to ensure that the plaintiff has a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).