|
Yup, Still On Leg 1, Y'all
International Primate Protection League v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund, 111 S.Ct. 1700
U.S.La.,1991
Party may challenge violation of federal statute in federal court if it has suffered injury that fairly can be traced to challenged action and that is likely to be redressed by requested relief. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1 et seq.
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 111 S.Ct. 1661
U.S.Cal.,1991
At the core of the standing doctrine is the requirement that a plaintiff allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.
U.S. Dept. of Labor v. Triplett, 110 S.Ct. 1428
U.S.W.Va.,1990
Ordinarily, litigant must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on legal rights or interests of third parties, even when the very same allegedly illegal act that affects litigant also affects third party.
Public Citizen v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 109 S.Ct. 2558
U.S.Dist.Col.,1989
Public interest groups had standing to bring suit against United States Department of Justice seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in connection with Department's consultation with professional legal organization's standing committee on federal judiciary regarding qualifications of nominees for federal judgeships; refusal to permit those groups to scrutinize committee's activities to extent allowed by Federal Advisory Committee Act constituted sufficiently distinct injury which fact that other groups or citizens might make the same complaint did not lessen, and ruling in groups' favor would provide genuine relief notwithstanding statutory disclosure exemptions. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 2, § 1 et seq.; Federal Advisory Committee Act, § 1 et seq., 5 U.S.C.A.App.
Clarke v. Securities Industry Ass'n, 107 S.Ct. 750
U.S.Dist.Col.,1987
Trade association representing securities brokers, underwriters, and investment bankers had standing to challenge Comptroller of Currency's approval of bank's application to offer discount brokerage services at locations inside and outside of its home state; interest asserted by association had plausible relationship to National Bank Act's policy of keeping national banks from gaining monopoly control over credit and money through unlimited branching. National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C.A. §§ 36, 81.
Diamond v. Charles, 106 S.Ct. 1697
U.S.Ill.,1986
Presence of a disagreement, however sharp and acrimonious it may be, is insufficient by itself to meet standing requirements. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1 et seq.
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 105 S.Ct. 2965
U.S.Kan.,1985
Standing to sue in any Article III court is federal question which does not depend on party's prior standing in state court. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1 et seq.
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 105 S.Ct. 2965
U.S.Kan.,1985
Generally stated, federal standing requires allegation of present or immediate injury in fact, where party requesting standing has alleged such personal stake in outcome of controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens presentation of issues; there must be some causal connection between asserted injury and challenged action, and injury must be of the type likely to be redressed by favorable decision.
Allen v. Wright, 104 S.Ct. 3315
U.S.D.C.,1984
Constitutional doctrine requiring a litigant to have "standing" to invoke the power of a federal court is perhaps the most important of the doctrines clustering around the Article III "case or controversy" requirement of federal judicial power. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1 et seq.
Allen v. Wright, 104 S.Ct. 3315
U.S.D.C.,1984
Standing doctrine embraces several judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiff's complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1 et seq.
Allen v. Wright, 104 S.Ct. 3315
U.S.D.C.,1984
Standing requirement has a core component derived directly from the Constitution in that a plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1 et seq.
Allen v. Wright, 104 S.Ct. 3315
U.S.D.C.,1984
Like the prudential component of federal judicial power, the constitutional component of the standing doctrine incorporates concepts not susceptible of precise definition and the injury alleged must be, for example, distinct and palpable and not abstract or conjectural or hypothetical and the injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged action and relief from the injury must be likely to follow from a favorable decision, and those terms cannot be defined so as to make application of the constitutional standing requirement a mechanical exercise. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1 et seq.
Allen v. Wright, 104 S.Ct. 3315
U.S.D.C.,1984
Absence of precise definitions of standing terminology does not leave courts at sea in applying the law of standing as, like most legal notions, the standing concepts have gained considerable definition from developing case law and in many cases the standing question can be answered chiefly by comparing the allegations of the particular complaint to those made in prior standing cases. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1 et seq.
Allen v. Wright, 104 S.Ct. 3315
U.S.D.C.,1984
Article III standing is built on a single basic idea, the idea of separation of powers. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1 et seq.
Allen v. Wright, 104 S.Ct. 3315
U.S.D.C.,1984
Questions relevant to standing inquiry must be answered by reference to the Article III notion that federal courts may exercise power only in the last resort and as a necessity and only when adjudication is consistent with a system of separated powers and the dispute is one traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1 et seq.
Allen v. Wright, 104 S.Ct. 3315
U.S.D.C.,1984
Asserted right to have the government act in accordance with law is not sufficient of itself to confer jurisdiction on a federal court. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1 et seq.
Allen v. Wright, 104 S.Ct. 3315
U.S.D.C.,1984
Separation-of-powers concept underlies the standing doctrine. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1 et seq.
Allen v. Wright, 104 S.Ct. 3315
U.S.D.C.,1984
When transported into the Article III context, principle of separation of powers counsels against recognizing standing in a case brought not to enforce specific legal obligations whose violation works a direct harm but to seek a restructuring of the apparatus established by the Executive Branch to fulfill its legal duties. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1 et seq.
|