In-House

Understanding Standing After 'Spokeo v. Robins'

, The Legal Intelligencer

   | 0 Comments

One of the most basic elements of federal-court practice is that a plaintiff must have constitutional "standing" to maintain a suit in federal court. In the closely watched case, Spokeo v. Robins, 578 U.S. No. 11-56843 (2016), the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with a frequently recurring issue—whether the mere violation of a statute itself constitutes an "injury in fact"—the "first and foremost" of the three standing requirements. "Injury in fact" is one of those legal concepts that makes intuitive sense—you have to be actually harmed before you can sue. But it can create confusion when you try to apply it to a particular case, as evidenced by the conflicting lower-court rulings that prompted the court to grant review in Spokeo.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202760588959

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.