Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
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]
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.
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:
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 ...
With the growth of the Internet, courts have faced the challenge of applying long-standing principles of personal jurisdiction to a borderless communication medium that enables businesses and individuals all over the world to instantaneously interact across state boundaries. This is a rapidly changing area of law without a Supreme Court precedent.
The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) as embodying two distinct limitations on exercise of judicial review: a bar on the issuance of advisory opinions, and a requirement that parties must have standing.
On January 4, 2007, several days before the iPhone was announced, Apple filed applications for four design patents covering the basic shape of the iPhone. [13] These were followed in June of that year with a massive filing of a color design patent covering 193 screenshots of various iPhone graphical user interfaces.