[weishaupt1776]

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 118 S.Ct. 1003
U.S.Ill.,1998
Standing to sue is part of common understanding of what it takes to make justiciable case. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 2, cl. 1.



Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 118 S.Ct. 1003
U.S.Ill.,1998
Supreme Court's standing jurisprudence, though it may sometimes have impact on presidential powers, derives from Article III, not Article II. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 2, § 3; U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 2, cl. 1.



Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 118 S.Ct. 1003
U.S.Ill.,1998
Irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three requirements: first and foremost, there must be alleged, and ultimately proven, an "injury in fact"--a harm suffered by plaintiff that is concrete and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; second, there must be "causation"--a fairly traceable connection between plaintiff's injury and complained-of conduct of defendant; third, there must be "redressability"--a likelihood that requested relief will redress alleged injury. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 2, cl. 1.
See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions.



Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 118 S.Ct. 1003
U.S.Ill.,1998
Presumption of future injury when defendant has voluntarily ceased its illegal activity in response to litigation is not substitute for allegation of present or threatened injury upon which initial standing must be based. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 2, cl. 1.



Raines v. Byrd, 117 S.Ct. 2312
U.S.Dist.Col.,1997
Article III standing inquiry focuses on whether plaintiff is proper party to bring suit, although that inquiry often turns on nature and source of claim asserted. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 2, cl. 1.



Raines v. Byrd, 117 S.Ct. 2312
U.S.Dist.Col.,1997
To meet standing requirements of Article III, plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by requested relief; plaintiff's complaint must establish that he or she has "personal stake" in alleged dispute, and that alleged injury suffered is particularized as to him or her. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 2, cl. 1.



Raines v. Byrd, 117 S.Ct. 2312
U.S.Dist.Col.,1997
To satisfy Article III standing requirements, alleged injury must be legally and judicially cognizable, which requires, among other things, that plaintiff have suffered invasion of legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized, and that dispute is traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through judicial process. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 2, cl. 1.


Bennett v. Spear, 117 S.Ct. 1154
U.S.Or.,1997
Prudential standing principles are judicially self-imposed limits on exercise of federal jurisdiction requiring that plaintiff's grievance arguably fall within zone of interests protected or regulated by statutory provision or constitutional guarantee invoked in suit, but, unlike constitutional standing requirements, prudential standing principles can be modified or abrogated by Congress.



Bennett v. Spear, 117 S.Ct. 1154
U.S.Or.,1997
Breadth of zone-of-interests test of prudential standing varies according to provisions of law at issue, so that what comes within zone of interests of statute for purposes of obtaining judicial review of administrative action under generous review provisions of Administrative Procedure Act (APA) may not do so for other purposes. 5 U.S.C.A. § 551 et seq.



Bennett v. Spear, 117 S.Ct. 1154
U.S.Or.,1997
Congress legislates against background of prudential standing doctrine, which applies unless it is expressly negated.



Bennett v. Spear, 117 S.Ct. 1154
U.S.Or.,1997
Case or controversy provision of Article III, establishing irreducible constitutional minimum of standing, requires: that plaintiff have suffered injury in fact arising from invasion of judicially cognizable interest which is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; that there be causal connection between injury and conduct complained of so that injury is fairly traceable to challenged action of defendant, and not result of independent action of some third party not before court; and that it be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that injury will be redressed by favorable decision. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1 et seq.



Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 117 S.Ct. 1055
U.S.Ariz.,1997
To qualify as party with standing to litigate, person must show, first and foremost, "an invasion of a legally protected interest" that is "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent." U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 2, cl. 1.



Lewis v. Casey, 116 S.Ct. 2174
U.S.Ariz.,1996
It is role of courts to provide relief to claimants, in individual or class actions, who have suffered, or will imminently suffer, actual harm; it is not role of courts, but that of political branches, to shape institutions of government in such fashion as to comply with the laws and the Constitution.



Lewis v. Casey, 116 S.Ct. 2174
U.S.Ariz.,1996
Standing is jurisdictional and not subject to waiver.



Lewis v. Casey, 116 S.Ct. 2174
U.S.Ariz.,1996
"Doctrine of standing" is a constitutional principle that prevents courts of law from undertaking tasks assigned to political branches.
See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions.



U.S. v. Hays, 115 S.Ct. 2431
U.S.La.,1995
Irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements: (1) plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact--invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) there must be causal connection between injury and conduct complained of; and (3) it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1 et seq.



Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 115 S.Ct. 2097
U.S.Colo.,1995
Fact of past injury, while presumably affording plaintiff standing to claim damages, does nothing to establish real and immediate threat that plaintiff would again suffer similar injury in the future. (Per opinion of Justice O'Connor, with three Justices concurring and one Justice concurring in part and concurring in judgment.) U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1 et seq.



National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 114 S.Ct. 798
U.S.Ill.,1994
Standing represents a jurisdictional requirement which remains open to review at all stages of litigation.



Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S.Ct. 2130
U.S.Minn.,1992
Though some of its elements express merely prudential considerations that are part of judicial self-government, core component of standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1 et seq.



Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S.Ct. 2130
U.S.Minn.,1992
Irreducible constitutional minimum of standing requires that plaintiff have suffered an injury in fact, which is an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent rather than conjectural or hypothetical; that there be a causal connection between the injury and conduct complained of so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court; and that it be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.



Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S.Ct. 2130
U.S.Minn.,1992
In order for injury to be "particularized," it must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.
See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions.



Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S.Ct. 2130
U.S.Minn.,1992
At the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from defendant's conduct may suffice to establish standing; in response to summary judgment motion, plaintiff can no longer rest on mere allegations but must set forth by affidavit or other evidence the specific facts which will be taken as true for purposes of summary judgment; at the final stage, those facts, if controverted, must be supported adequately by the evidence adduced at trial. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 56(e), 28 U.S.C.A.



Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S.Ct. 2130
U.S.Minn.,1992
Imminence of injury is demanded for standing even when the alleged harm does not depend upon affirmative actions of third parties which are beyond the plaintiff's control.



Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 111 S.Ct. 2298
U.S.Dist.Col.,1991
To establish standing, party must allege personal injury fairly traceable to defendant's alleged unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by requested relief.



Gollust v. Mendell, 111 S.Ct. 2173
U.S.N.Y.,1991
Plaintiff must maintain a personal stake in the outcome in the litigation through its course. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1 et seq.



International Primate Protection League v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund, 111 S.Ct. 1700
U.S.La.,1991
"Standing" does not refer simply to party's capacity to appear in court; rather standing is gauged by specific common-law, statutory or constitutional claims that party presents. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1 et seq.
See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions.