Citation network
Sprint Communications Co. Vs. Apcc Services, Inc.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 23, 2008
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Sprint Communications Co. v. APCCSearch
-
Services, Inc. - 07-552 (2008) Syllabus October Term, 2007 Sprint Communications Co. V. ApccSearch
-
is a strong tradition specifically of suits by assignees for collection. And while precedents of this Court, Waite v. SantaSearch
-
Cruz , 184 U. S. 302 , Spiller v. AtchisonSearch
-
T. & S. F. R. Co. , 253 U. S. 117 , and Titus v. WallickSearch
-
to resolution by the judicial process, Steel Co. v. CitizensSearch
-
s injuries. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. UnitedSearch
-
C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Sprint Communications Co. v. APCCSearch
-
Services, Inc. - 07-552 (2008) Opinion of the Court Sprint Communications Co. V. ApccSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-552 Sprint Communications Company, L. P., Et Al., Petitioners V. ApccSearch
-
calls. And many have done so. See Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. MetrophonesSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
to sue under Article III of the Constitution. The District Court initially agreed to dismiss, APCC Servs., Inc. v. AT&TSearch
-
APCC Servs., Inc. v. AT&TSearch
-
have standing to sue, but held that the relevant statutes do not create a private right of action. APCC Servs., Inc. v. SprintSearch
-
the judgment, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Global Crossing, supra. APPC Services, Inc. v. SprintSearch
-
or-controversy requirement is satisfied only where a plaintiff has standing. See, e.g. , DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. CunoSearch
-
s injury will be remedied by the relief plaintiff seeks in bringing suit). Lujan v. DefendersSearch
-
guide to the types of cases that Article III empowers federal courts to consider. See, e.g. , Steel Co. v. CitizensSearch
-
GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. ConsumersSearch
-
cf. Coleman v. MillerSearch
-
the assignor as a party to the action so as to bind him to whatever judgment was reached. See, e.g. , Warmstrey v. TanfieldSearch
-
Fashion v. AtwoodSearch
-
Peters v. SoameSearch
-
Squib v. WynSearch
-
Lord Carteret v. PaschalSearch
-
Row v. DawsonSearch
-
ed. 2003). Compare, e.g., Barrow v. GraySearch
-
the assignor to sue in such circumstances precisely because the assignor retained legal title. See, e.g. , Winch v. KeeleySearch
-
at 137. See, e.g. , McCullum v. CoxeSearch
-
Dennie v. ChapmanSearch
-
Andrews v. BeeckerSearch
-
Riddle & Co. v. MandevilleSearch
-
who promised to turn over to those assignors the proceeds secured through litigation. See, e.g. , Webb & Hepp v. MorganSearch
-
Meeker v. ClaghornSearch
-
Searing v. BerrySearch
-
Grant v. HeverinSearch
-
McDaniel v. PresslerSearch
-
Wines v. RioSearch
-
Gomer v. StockdaleSearch
-
of federal courts similarly indicated approval of suits by assignees for collection only. See, e.g. , Bradford v. JenksSearch
-
Orr v. LacySearch
-
Murdock v. TheSearch
-
Even this Court long ago indicated that assignees for collection only can properly bring suit. For example, in Waite v. SantaSearch
-
Id., at 325. Next, in Spiller v. AtchisonSearch
-
to allow him to bring suit in federal court on the aggregated claims of his assignors. Similarly, in Titus v. WallickSearch
-
footnote omitted)). See also Rosenblum v. DingfelderSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial