Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Individual Congressmembers lack the particularized interest required for standing for issues affecting the entire Congress, in this case the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. 7–2 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno: 2006: Held that state taxpayers do not have standing to challenge to state tax laws in federal court. 9–0 Massachusetts v. EPA: 2007
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 ...
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 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.
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]
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."
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.
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.