Wendland v. Gutierrez

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 premise of plaintiff’s argument that the court had subject matter jurisdiction because he satisfied the requirements for standing was “wrong because it conflates separate and distinct concepts: standing and subject matter jurisdiction”
• rejecting argument that “the court has subject matter jurisdiction because [plaintiff] satisfies the requirements for standing”
• rejecting argument that “the court has subject matter jurisdiction because [plaintiff] satisfies the requirements for standing”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).