Wilson v. Mississippi

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 third prong is met if the plaintiff \will likely file more FOIA requests with [the agency] in the future\
• holding that that the plaintiff’s “specific FOIA request delayed by [the defendant was] sufficient to demonstrate that he was personally harmed by [the defendant’s] pattern of delay in contravention of FOIA’s time limits”
• holding that where “the factual record [was] not sufficiently developed” for the district court “to determine whether [a litigant] has standing to bring a . . . claim,” the remedy is to “remand for further fact finding”
• noting that a plaintiff can satisfy the first prong by \provid[ing] evidence that he has been subjected to a FOIA violation more than once\
• holding that informational injuries under FOIA satisfy Article III’s “injury-in-fact” requirement
• holding that informational injuries under FOIA satisfy Article III’s “injury-in-fact” requirement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).