Article III

Subscribe to Article III via RSS

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Pamela Q. Devata, Robert T. Szyba, and Ephraim J. Pierre

supremecourt-150x112Seyfarth Synopsis: In deciding Spokeo v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that plaintiffs seeking to establish that they have standing to sue must show “an invasion of a legally protected interest” that is particularized and concrete — that is, the injury “must …
Continue Reading Spokeo v. Robins: The U.S. Supreme Court Finds Concrete Injury Is Required Under Article III But Remands Back To The Ninth Circuit

By Pamela Q. Devata, Robert T. Szyba, and Ephraim J. Pierre

SCOTUSFollowing the U.S. Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari on April 27, 2015 in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (which we reported here), the Petitioner has weighed in with their brief.

As you may recall, the question before the Court has the potential to determine…
Continue Reading Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins: Petitioner Argues If There Is No Actual Injury-in-Fact, Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Sue

By Pamela Q. Devata, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Robert T. Szyba

blogYesterday the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari filed in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2015).

As we previously reported, the Spokeo petition poses a question with a significant impact on the future scope of consumer…
Continue Reading The Supreme Court Grants Certiorari In Spokeo – No Harm, No Standing?