Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The question of sufficient interest had to be resolved in relation to what was known by the court of the matter under review, and on the evidence the tax scheme was a lawful exercise of the IRC's discretion. Lord Fraser stressed the sufficient interest test was a logically prior question that had to be answered before any question of merits arose.
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 ...
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 application must be concerned with a public law matter, i.e. the action must be based on some rule of public law, not purely (for example) tort or contract.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Help; Learn to edit; Community portal; Recent changes; Upload file
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:
It claimed it represented broader public interests, including of people in developing countries. The Foreign Secretary argued it should not have standing by having a sufficient interest. The WDM claimed the Foreign Secretary had misused powers conferred by the legislation.
Case history; Prior: 278 A.D. 253, 104 N.Y.S.2d 740 (App. Div. 1951), affirmed, 303 N.Y. 242, 101 N.E.2d 665 (1951).Holding; Provisions of the New York Education Law that allow a censor to forbid the commercial showing of any non-licensed motion picture film, or revoke or deny the license of a film deemed to be "sacrilegious", were a "restraint on freedom of speech", and thereby a violation of ...