Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Case or Controversy Clause, U.S. Const. Art. III III Hughes , 258 U.S. 126 (1922), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a general citizen, in a state that already had women's suffrage , lacked standing to challenge the validity of the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment . [ 1 ]
Clause 2 of Section 2 provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors, ministers and consuls, and also in those controversies which are subject to federal judicial power because at least one state is a party; the Court has held that the latter requirement is met if the United States has a controversy ...
Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911), [1] was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court delineated the authority of United States federal courts to hear certain kinds of cases under the Case or Controversy Clause of the United States Constitution.
For example, the Case or Controversy Clause of Article Three of the United States Constitution (Section 2, Clause 1) states that "the judicial Power shall extend ... to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party". This clause has been deemed to impose a requirement that United States federal courts are not permitted to cases that ...
Case or Controversy Clause; D. Diversity jurisdiction; J. Judicial review in the United States; Judicial Vesting Clause This page was last edited on 11 July 2019 ...
This page was last edited on 24 May 2011, at 05:48 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply ...
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court vacated and remanded a ruling by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the basis that the Ninth Circuit had not properly determined whether the plaintiff has suffered an "injury-in-fact" when analyzing whether he had standing to bring his case in federal court. [1]