Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
However, the United Kingdom courts gradually adopted a single sufficient interest test for all prerogative orders. [13] In R. v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ex parte Cook (1969), [14] for example, the High Court used a sufficient interest test to determine whether an applicant had standing to apply for a mandatory order. [15]
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:
Note that legislation can impose shorter time limits while a court may hold that an application made in less than three months may still be not prompt enough. The applicant must have a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates. [4]: s. 31(3) This requirement is also known as standing (or “locus standi”).
The issue on appeal was separation of the note and mortgage, and whether that affected the plaintiff’s right to foreclose. ... lacked standing to foreclose on the mortgage because it did ...
5–4 Baker v. Carr: 1962: Held that voters have standing to litigate when their Constitutional Right to vote in the United States is infringed. 7–2 Epperson v. Arkansas: 1968: In contrast to Poe, the court did recognize standing in a case for overturning an unenforced Arkansas state law prohibiting the teaching of evolution. [3] 9–0 Flast ...
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution states: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to ...
The High Court held that the WDM had a sufficient interest, and that too much money was spent on the dam. Rose LJ said the following: factors of significance in the present case: the importance of vindicating the rule of law... the importance of the issue raised... the likely absence of any other responsible challenger... the nature of the breach of duty... the prominent role of these ...
The Commonwealth conceded that Pape had standing to contend that the payment to him under the Bonus Act was unlawful, but submitted that Pape did not have sufficient special interest to argue the broader issue that the Bonus Act was invalid in its application to other persons. No member of the Court accepted this submission.