THADDEOUS AUSTIN WARRINGTON v. STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiff lacked standing because he failed to show that the ruling sought would yield any meaningful relief to which he was not already entitled
• stating that informational injury will not be found if a plaintiff cannot show that the legal ruling sought “might lead to additional factual information”
• denying an informational injury claim when the appellants failed to demonstrate “that the legal ruling they seek might lead to additional factual information”
• rejecting standing for plaintiffs who “do not really seek additional facts but only the legal determination that certain transactions constitute coordinated expenditures”
• rejecting standing for plaintiffs who “do not really seek additional facts but only the legal determination that certain transactions constitute coordinated expenditures”
• rejecting request for “FEC 18 investigation” and “determination . . . through an investigative process” the aim of which was to secure a “legal determination that the respondents engaged in a coordinated scheme to violate FECA”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).