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.
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 ...
To establish standing, the courts have required proof of three elements. First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical’”.
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:
Because the need for minimum contacts is a matter of personal jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear the claim with respect to a particular party) instead of subject matter jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear this kind of claim at all), a party can explicitly or implicitly waive their right to object to the court hearing the case.
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 ...