Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Grayson v. AT & T CORP.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided January 20, 2011No. 07-CV-1264, 08-CV-1089Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRuiz, Associate Judge
Although I conclude that both appellants had standing to bring suit, I agree with the court’s conclusion that Grayson’s complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action under the CPPA. Breakman’s complaint does state a cause of action, however, and I would reverse and remand his case for further proceedings.
*253This appeal presents three issues for consideration:
1) Must a plaintiff, to have standing to sue under the CPPA, allege injury-in-fact?
2) Even if the CPPA does not impose such a requirement, are the District of Columbia courts nonetheless bound to adjudicate only…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- City of Los Angeles v. LyonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Jones v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Havens Realty Corp. v. ColemanSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Murphy v. HuntSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.