Ads
related to: standing and sufficient interest pdf notes format page break free
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 ...
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”).
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]
OP-ED: Given the confusion among many courts as to how the foreclosure process works with regard to GSE loans, the decision in "Capital One v. Peck" should be helpful.
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 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 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 ...
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."