Swanson Group Mfg. LLC v. Sally Jewell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “general averments” and “conclusory allegations” about past injury were insufficient to establish imminent future injury
• explaining that courts will not fill in “missing facts” necessary to establish an element of standing at summary judgment (quoting Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 889 (1990))
• explaining that a party must set forth “specific facts” to substantiate standing (citation omitted)
• noting the previous Phillippi Declaration “d[id] not indicate the extent of Rough & Ready’s reliance on timber purchased from Medford”
• finding no standing because plaintiffs did not proffer sufficient evidence of injury resulting from the challenged government action
• finding no standing because plaintiffs did not proffer sufficient evidence of injury resulting from the challenged government action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).