Ads
related to: standing in a court case- Settlement Calculator
Zero Cost, No Obligation
Remote Consultation
- No Fault Accident?
Work With an Expert Accident Lawyer
Recieve the Maximum Compensation
- Se Habla Español
Los Mejores Abogados de Accidentes
Una Consulta Gratis
- Maximum Compensation
Get the Maximum Compensation
Win First - Pay Later
- Settlement Calculator
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:
Held that state taxpayers do not have standing to challenge to state tax laws in federal court. 9–0 Massachusetts v. EPA: 2007: States have standing to sue the EPA to enforce their views of federal law, in this case, the view that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Cited Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. as precedent ...
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), is a Supreme Court of the United States case on the issue of standing under the Administrative Procedure Act.The Court rejected a lawsuit by the Sierra Club seeking to block the development of a ski resort at Mineral King valley in the Sierra Nevada Mountains because the club had not alleged any injury.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision, handed down on June 12, 1992, that heightened standing requirements under Article III of the United States Constitution. It is "one of the most influential cases in modern environmental standing jurisprudence."
Court Clarifies Standing Requirements if Note and Mortgage Separated. July 27, 2018 at 7:00 AM ... The court stated the facts of the case as follows. The originator of the loan sold the note to ...
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court vacated and remanded a ruling by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the basis that the Ninth Circuit had not properly determined whether the plaintiff has suffered an "injury-in-fact" when analyzing whether he had standing to bring his case in federal court. [1]
In an opinion authored by Justice White, the Court held 5–4 that Lyons had failed to allege a sufficiently plausible threat of future injury to have standing to seek an injunction. Lyons, however, had standing for his damages action since it was retrospective and the injury, being subjected to the chokehold, was concrete and particular.
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), was a United States Court case dealing with standing under Article III of the Constitution related to class-action suits against private defendants. In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that only those that can show concrete harm have standing to seek damages against private defendants.