Legal Opinion

Kravitz v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce

District Court, D. Maryland

Decided December 28, 2018No. Case No.: GJH-18-1041; Case No.: GJH-18-1570PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

1. Concrete injury-in-fact

To establish standing's injury-in-fact element, a plaintiff must show it "has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury" as a result of the challenged action. Spokeo , 136 S.Ct. at 1552 (quotation omitted). A plaintiff's injury or threat of injury must be "concrete and particularized," not conjectural or hypothetical. Lujan , 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130. If standing is based upon an alleged future injury, the plaintiff must demonstrate a substantial risk the harm will occur. See Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA , 568 U.S. 398, 409, 133 S.Ct.…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
  5. Clapper v. Amnesty International USASupreme Court of the United States · 2013

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Nat'l Ass'n v. Bureau of the CensusDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2019
  2. Best v. Newrez, LLCDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API