Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 53 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Friends of Animals v. Sally Jewell.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Friends of Animals v. Sally Jewell Anchor | green | “(1) it has been deprived of information that, on its interpretation, a statute requires the government or a third party to disclose to it, and (2) it suffers, by being denied access to that information, the type of harm congress sought to prevent by requiring disclosure.” | 12 |
| 2 | Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Thomas Vilsack | green | “an organization does not suffer an injury in fact where it 'expends resources to educate its members and others' unless doing so subjects the organization to 'operational costs beyond those normally expended.” | 8 |
| 3 | Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Thomas Vilsack | green | “first, whether the agency's action or omission to act injured the organization's interest and, second, whether the organization used its resources to counteract that harm.” | 8 |
| 4 | Turlock Irrigation District v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission | green | “this is true whether the advocacy takes place through litigation or administrative proceedings.” | 5 |
| 5 | People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. United States Department of Agriculture | green | “actual or threatened injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the alleged illegal action and likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision.” | 5 |
| 6 | Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. Von Eschenbach | green | “the court has distinguished between organizations that allege that their activities have been impeded from those that merely allege that their mission has been compromised.” | 4 |
| 7 | People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. United States Department of Agriculture | green | “used its resources to counteract that harm.” | 4 |
| 8 | People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. United States Department of Agriculture | green | “suffered a concrete and demonstrable injury to its activities.” | 4 |
| 9 | Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. Von Eschenbach | green | “from those that merely allege that their mission has been compromised” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.