875:(ESA). The rule rendered §7 of the ESA applicable only to actions within the United States or on the high seas. The Court found that the plaintiffs did not have the standing necessary to bring suit, because no injury had been established. The injury claimed by the plaintiffs was that damage would be caused to certain species of animals and that this in turn injures the plaintiffs by the reduced likelihood that the plaintiffs would see the species in the future. The court insisted though that the plaintiffs had to show how damage to the species would produce imminent injury to the plaintiffs. The Court found that the plaintiffs did not sustain this burden of proof. "The 'injury in fact' test requires more than an injury to a cognizable interest. It requires that the party seeking review be himself among the injured". The injury must be imminent and not hypothetical.
385:
858:
not enforcing standards and procedures that would deny tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools. The Court found that the plaintiffs did not have the standing necessary to bring suit. Although the Court established a significant injury for one of the claims, it found the causation of the injury (the nexus between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injuries) to be too attenuated. "The injury alleged was not fairly traceable to the
Government conduct respondents challenge as unlawful".
1024:, even though he knew he was infected and did not inform her of this. She sued him for damages, but because it was illegal (at the time the case was filed) to commit "fornication" (sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not married), Ziherl argued that Martin could not sue him because joint tortfeasors – those involved in committing a crime – cannot sue each other over acts occurring as a result of a criminal act (
285:
obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed". Under this approach, a party can only seek redress provided he has proved to the satisfaction of the court that he has suffered sufficient damage over and above any other persons in the concern action. Particularly, only the
Attorney General can seek redress in any case on public affairs except the party is authorised through fiat emanates from the Attorney General.
972:. Even where states waive their sovereign immunity, they may nonetheless have their own rules limiting standing against simple taxpayer standing against the state. Furthermore, states have the power to determine what will constitute standing for a litigant to be heard in a state court, and may deny access to the courts premised on taxpayer standing alone.
210:, whether an individual has standing to bring an application for judicial review, or an appeal from the decision of a tribunal, is governed by the language of the particular statute under which the application or the appeal is brought. Some statutes provide for a narrow right of standing while others provide for a broader right of standing.
279:
Like in other jurisdictions, the right to approach a court is contained in the
Constitution. The right to approach a court has been interpreted in several cases, this has led to the right to be view differently in different cases. In recent times, there have been different approaches to locus standi.
857:
In 1984, the
Supreme Court reviewed and further outlined the standing requirements in a major ruling concerning the meaning of the three standing requirements of injury, causation, and redressability. In the suit, parents of black public school children alleged that the Internal Revenue Service was
288:
Liberal approach — a departure or exception to the traditional approach. Locus standi may be granted to any person who challenges any unconstitutionality provided the person is subject to the constitution. This expands locus standi on constitutional issues. Justice Aboki of the Court of Appeal said
284:
Traditional approach — only the party who has suffered pecuniary damage or special damage can seek redress in a court of law. In the case of Airtel
Networks Ltd. v. George it was held that "a party is said to have locus if he has shown sufficient interest in the action and that his civil rights and
56:
The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief.
808:
A party may only assert their own rights and cannot raise the claims of a third party who is not before the court; exceptions exist where the third party has interchangeable economic interests with the injured party, or a person unprotected by a particular law sues to challenge the oversweeping of
1119:
whether the plaintiff has sufficiently plead a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has some entitlement to judicial action separate from proof of the substantive merits of the claim advanced. The court acknowledged that the word "standing" is often sloppily used to refer to what is really
908:
555 U.S. 488 (2009), the
Supreme Court held the petitioner environmental organizations' claim that it was "statistically likely" that some of their members would visit the affected lands was insufficient to support Article III standing. The majority opinion stated the "deprivation of a procedural
262:
It has been seen that when public interest standing is sought, consideration must be given to three aspects. First, is there a serious issue raised as to the invalidity of legislation in question? Second, has it been established that the plaintiff is directly affected by the legislation or if not
1013:
The only other way someone can have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute is if the existence of the statute would otherwise deprive him of a right or a privilege even if the statute itself would not apply to him. The
Virginia Supreme Court made this point clear in the case of
833:
A plaintiff cannot sue if the injury is widely shared in an undifferentiated way with many people. For example, the general rule is that there is no federal taxpayer standing, as complaints about the spending of federal funds are too remote from the process of acquiring them. Such grievances are
1041:
cases and no one had been prosecuted for fornication anywhere in
Virginia in over 100 years, Martin had no risk of prosecution and thus lacked standing to challenge the statute. Martin appealed. Since Martin had something to lose – the ability to sue Ziherl for damages – if the statute was
878:
Beyond failing to show injury, the Court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the standing requirement of redressability. The Court pointed out that the respondents chose to challenge a more generalized level of government action, "the invalidation of which would affect all overseas
766:
The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract). The injury can be either economic, non-economic, or
94:
of a law unless they can demonstrate that they are or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality.
676:. As stated there, "The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . . to Controversies . . ." The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers.
1046:
had found that there is a privacy right in one's private, noncommercial sexual practices, the
Virginia Supreme Court decided that the statute against fornication was unconstitutional. The finding gave Martin standing to sue Ziherl since the decision in
773:
There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the
147:
1977 to have standing the applicant must be "a person who is aggrieved", defined as "a person whose interests are adversely affected" by the decision or conduct complained of. This has generally been interpreted in accordance with the common law test.
1114:
for the Sixth
District ruled that California Code of Civil Procedure Section 367 cannot be read as imposing a federal-style standing doctrine on California's code pleading system of civil procedure. In California, the fundamental inquiry is
1000:
With limited exceptions, a party cannot have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute unless they will be subjected to the provisions of that statute. There are some exceptions, however; for example, courts will accept
61:, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law. This is known as the "
1085:
had banned same-sex marriage in California, a ban that was ruled unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that the proponents of Proposition 8 has no standing in court since they failed to show that they were harmed by the decision.
983:, a taxpayer has standing to sue if the state government is acting unconstitutionally with respect to public funds, or if government action is causing some special injury to the taxpayer that is not shared by taxpayers in general. In
1106:
actions" against public officials for wasting public funds through mismanagement of a government agency, where the relief sought is an order compelling the official not to waste money and fulfill his duty to protect the public fisc.
2738:
3655:
1384:
1066:
award. In this context, an "interested party" is a company or person who bid for a contract, or a prospective bidder, whose "direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract" to another business.
81:
if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a
1489:
1034:(finding that state's sodomy law unconstitutional), Virginia's anti-fornication law was also unconstitutional for the reasons cited in Lawrence. Martin argued, therefore, she could, in fact, sue Ziherl for damages.
991:
has more or less adopted a similar rule. An individual taxpayer generally has standing to challenge an act of a city or county where they live, but does not have general standing to challenge state expenditures.
298:
In British administrative law, an applicant needs to have a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates. This sufficient interest requirement has been construed liberally by the courts. As
3530:
2953:
1661:
254:
942:. The Court has consistently found that the conduct of the federal government is too far removed from individual taxpayer returns for any injury to the taxpayer to be traced to the use of tax revenues, e.g.,
289:"the requirement of (strict) locus standi become unnecessary in constitutional issues as it will merely impede judicial function". Likewise, any person can challenge infringement of fundamental human rights.
1005:
challenges to a statute on overbreadth grounds, where a person who is only partially affected by a statute can challenge the parts that do not affect him on the grounds that laws that restrict speech have a
2945:
221:
against a public body or official. This is considered an aspect of administrative law, sometimes with a constitutional dimension, as when the litigant seeks to have legislation declared unconstitutional.
2913:
72:
in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows the
1619:
695:. Accordingly, before the court will hear a case, it must find that the parties have a tangible interest at stake in the matter, the issue presented must be "mature for judicial resolution" or
661:. Being a judge himself, he strongly believed that a judge's sole purpose was to resolve legal conflicts; he held that judges should hand down an opinion only when they rule on an actual case.
236:
819:
doctrine if the third party is an infant, mentally handicapped, or not a party to a contract. One example of a statutory exception to the prohibition of third party standing exists in the
3366:
1042:
upheld, she had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute even though the possibility of her being prosecuted for violating it was zero. Since the U.S. Supreme Court in
53:. In informal terms, a party must have something to lose. The party has standing because they will be directly harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
3711:
3615:
1020:
607 S.E.2d 367 (Va. 2005). Martin and Ziherl were girlfriend and boyfriend and engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse when Martin discovered that Ziherl had infected her with
3358:
747:, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant charged with violating a federal statute does have standing to challenge the constitutionality of that statute under the
618:
1381:
2961:
2646:
3318:
3310:
1169:
33:, 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:
957:, the Court extended this analysis to state governments as well. However, the Supreme Court has also held that taxpayer standing is constitutionally sufficient to sue a
2937:
2638:
734:
was ratified. Prior to it, the doctrine was that all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right. Since then the doctrine has been embedded in
3850:
3326:
2754:
58:
673:
2423:
867:, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court elaborated on the redressability requirement for standing. The case involved a challenge to a rule promulgated by the
731:
3743:
2622:
2372:
2347:
2322:
2294:
2173:
2148:
2123:
2097:
2050:
2002:
1961:
1936:
1908:
3294:
2985:
368:
from the state. If the state fails properly to bring a case, the victim or his family may have standing to bring a private prosecution, as in the case of
3623:
2606:
1516:
611:
158:
to the subject matter is the test. Furthermore, a plaintiff must show that he or she has been specially affected in comparison with the public at large.
132:
3222:
2799:
1002:
979:, taxpayers have standing to sue for any 'illegal expenditure of, waste of, or injury to the estate, funds, or other property of a local agency'. In
810:
748:
263:
does the plaintiff have a genuine interest in its validity? Third, is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the court?
3735:
3238:
2791:
2071:
1705:
1675:
657:, the second chief justice of the United States, was largely responsible for denying the Supreme Court the right to give advisory opinions at the
313:
in our system of public law if a pressure group ... or even a single public spirited taxpayer, were prevented by outdated technical rules of
2555:
684:
669:
3001:
604:
143:(1980). At common law, the test for standing is whether the plaintiff has a "special interest in the subject matter of the action". Under the
3334:
3142:
2392:
3342:
2969:
2614:
809:
the law into the rights of others. For example, a party suing over a law prohibiting certain types of visual material, may sue because the
330:
1866:
151:
There is no open standing, unless statute allows it, or represents needs of a specified class of people. The issue is one of remoteness.
1081:, the Supreme Court ruled that being the proponents of a ballot measure is not by itself enough to confer legal standing. In that case,
3033:
2816:
2409:
2281:
The King and I?: An Examination of the Interest Qui Tam Relators Represent and the Implications for Future False Claims Act Litigation
3246:
658:
1054:
However, the only reason Martin had standing to challenge the statute was that she had something to lose if it stayed on the books.
3815:
3727:
365:
333:, which allows third parties specified in a contract to enforce it provided the contract expressly grants them the right to do so.
664:
There are a number of requirements that a plaintiff must establish to have standing before a federal court. Some are based on the
4052:
2811:
868:
571:
909:
right without some concrete interest that is affected by the deprivation . . . is insufficient to create Article III standing."
3514:
2543:
1633:
879:
projects". This programmatic approach has "obvious difficulties insofar as proof of causation or redressability is concerned".
688:
392:
242:
2993:
2762:
2658:
1609:, an application for review may be made by "anyone directly affected by the matter in respect of which the relief is sought".
590:
329:
means that only those who are party to a contract can sue or be sued upon it. This doctrine was substantially amended by the
3759:
3254:
3098:
2833:
2143:
2045:
679:
Federal courts may exercise power only "in the last resort, and as a necessity". The Supreme Court has determined that the
449:
846:
Zone of interests: The party is arguably within the zone of interest protected by the statute or constitutional provision.
3972:
2881:
2677:
317:
from bringing the matter to the attention of the court to vindicate the rule of law and get the unlawful conduct stopped.
234:
developed the concept of public interest standing in three constitutional cases commonly called "the Standing trilogy":
3647:
3049:
2590:
2552:
1676:"Supreme Court of Canada - Decisions - Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)"
1542:
1318:
Right To Life Association (NSW) Inc v Secretary, Department of Human Services and Health and Family Planning Inc (Vic)
898:— allowing private individuals to sue on behalf of the U.S. government for injuries suffered solely by the government.
887:
646:
3905:
2317:
1444:
1205:
903:
494:
50:
1790:
Inland Revenue Commissioners Appellants v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. Respondents
3009:
735:
91:
3214:
3350:
3206:
3041:
2569:
1647:
543:
248:
2023:
3687:
3639:
2977:
2889:
2289:
2092:
872:
863:
3719:
3448:
3073:
3057:
2746:
2367:
953:
843:
Zone of injury: The injury is the kind of injury that Congress expected might be addressed under the statute.
780:
It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.
469:
3751:
3663:
3134:
2857:
2783:
1997:
1028:, 404 S.E.2d 721 (Va. 1990)). Martin argued in rebuttal that because of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in
743:
207:
1094:
State law on standing differs substantially from federal law and varies considerably from state to state.
730:, a citizen sued the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to challenge the procedures by which the
3432:
2873:
2849:
2774:
1305:
1289:
1111:
962:
944:
935:
581:
460:
41:
or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of
3988:
3190:
3065:
2669:
2536:
1703:
1679:
1593:
1569:
1538:
1525:
1473:
1329:
680:
369:
3799:
3158:
1221:
Lee, Evan; Mason Ellis, Josephine (December 3, 2012). "The Standing Doctrine's Dirty Little Secret".
988:
529:
484:
337:
2428:
Digitalis Education Solutions and United States v Morris & Lee (Doing Business as Science First)
4020:
3791:
3440:
3230:
3198:
2905:
2685:
1498:
1413:
1364:
1273:
939:
439:
350:, a self-appointed guardian of suburban morality, was permitted to bring a private prosecution for
2079:
emissions satisfied element of causation for Massachusetts's alleged injury of loss of coastland).
57:
In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the
4047:
4004:
3996:
3933:
3575:
3025:
2722:
1502:
1417:
1368:
322:
231:
136:
90:
In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the
29:
is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the
3767:
3485:
3182:
2921:
2865:
2841:
2598:
1325:
1077:
1007:
926:
Taxpayer standing is the concept that any person who pays taxes should have standing to file a
474:
2516:
2500:
2453:
1860:
1234:
1195:
267:
Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found in
3874:
3775:
3607:
3302:
3286:
3262:
3166:
3126:
2739:
Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co.
2529:
2376:
2351:
2326:
2298:
2177:
2152:
2127:
2101:
2054:
2006:
1965:
1940:
1931:
1912:
1589:
1565:
1561:
1521:
1469:
1465:
1321:
938:
has held that taxpayer standing is not by itself a sufficient basis for standing against the
919:
840:
There are in fact two tests used by the United States Supreme Court for the zone of interest
712:
505:
479:
1887:
1585:
1915:
1827:
1494:
1409:
1360:
1269:
1174:
958:
803:
489:
218:
2521:
384:
8:
3591:
3567:
3477:
3424:
3110:
2897:
2581:
1956:
1063:
789:
Additionally, there are three major prudential (judicially created) standing principles (
718:
665:
653:
is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues."
576:
566:
561:
522:
170:
2427:
154:
Standing may apply to class of aggrieved people, where essentially the closeness of the
3980:
3866:
3823:
3679:
3656:
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State
3559:
3460:
3278:
3118:
3017:
2713:
2379:
2329:
2301:
2180:
2130:
2104:
2057:
2009:
1968:
1943:
1808:
1802:
1555:
1144:
969:
434:
342:
192:
78:
2354:
2155:
4012:
3880:
3858:
3842:
3807:
3783:
3538:
3374:
3270:
3174:
2825:
2693:
2630:
2449:
1814:
1440:
1230:
1201:
1103:
1030:
642:
351:
188:
104:
83:
69:
2477:
3917:
3382:
2929:
2701:
1862:
The Lives and Times of the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
1344:
1016:
895:
824:
692:
414:
162:
1490:
Truth About Motorways Pty Ltd v Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Ltd
815:
Additionally, third parties who do not have standing may be able to sue under the
3964:
3925:
3671:
3631:
3583:
3150:
2168:
1903:
1845:
1709:
1388:
1139:
1037:
Lower courts decided that because the Commonwealth's Attorney does not prosecute
396:
347:
62:
2954:
C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma
3695:
3599:
3531:
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City
3522:
3403:
2730:
2342:
2076:
1662:
Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)
1164:
723:
700:
404:
255:
Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)
68:
The party is granted automatic standing by act of law. For example, under some
107:
created the first international court before which individuals have automatic
4041:
3506:
3469:
2946:
College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board
1730:
Abraham Adesanya v. President (1981)Law Pavilion Electronic Law Report -44501
1159:
1082:
707:
654:
553:
184:
178:
2914:
Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma
1721:
section 6(6)B of Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended
3703:
2441:
2024:"The Presumption of Injury: Giving Data Breach Victims 'A Leg To Stand On'"
813:
rights of theirs, and others engaged in similar displays, might be damaged.
364:. Victims of crime have standing to sue the perpetrator and they may claim
309:
300:
214:
174:
1865:. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. pp. 432–433.
1038:
816:
703:
issue must remain before the court throughout the course of the lawsuit.
515:
361:
45:
or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the
1149:
1122:
976:
930:
against the taxing body if that body allocates funds in a way that the
834:
ordinarily more appropriately addressed in the representative branches.
166:
120:
46:
3367:
Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg.
2496:
Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.)
716:. However, legal standing truly rests its first prudential origins in
1130:
in state law is not the same thing as the federal standing doctrine.
155:
74:
2284:
2120:
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens
884:
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens
354:(an offence still in existence until 2008) against the publisher of
3497:
3415:
1340:
1338:
984:
931:
696:
650:
636:
632:
429:
424:
356:
3712:
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.
3616:
United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures
336:
Almost all criminal prosecutions are brought by the state via the
980:
927:
891:
820:
794:
710:
doctrine of standing is assumed as having begun with the case of
340:, so private prosecutions are rare. An exception was the case of
326:
128:
42:
38:
2474:
Humane Society of the United States v. State Bd. of Equalization
1335:
1197:
Judicial Process: Law, Courts, and Politics in the United States
649:
has stated, "In essence the question of standing is whether the
3359:
JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd.
1154:
1021:
204:
2962:
Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community
2647:
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.
30:
3319:
Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.
3311:
Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle
1347:, Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House Incorporated
1170:
List of United States Supreme Court cases involving standing
917:
The initial case that established the doctrine of standing,
2938:
Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.
2639:
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States
2551:
1981:
The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance
3851:
County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State
2755:
Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co.
37:
The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the
2430:, p. 5, decided 4 January 2012, accessed 19 December 2023
1057:
59:
First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
1200:(7th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning. p. 412.
1062:
Only an "interested party" has standing to challenge a
2424:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
3744:
Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn
2623:
England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners
2442:"A Survey of Constitutional Standing in State Courts"
2283:, 28 St. Louis Pub. L. Rev. 459 (2009), available at
852:
3295:
Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida
2986:
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York
2607:
Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux
2075:(global warming caused by EPA's refusal to regulate
968:
States are also protected against lawsuits by their
3624:
Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War
2028:
Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law
1739:(2015) 4 NIGERIAN WEEKLY LAW REPORT -NWLR- page 60
1430:
1428:
1426:
1302:
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
1286:
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
133:
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
3223:Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley
1888:John & Edward Rutledge of South Carolina, P. 8
3239:American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co.
2800:Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.
1748:Jukok Int'l Ltd. v. Diamond Bank PLC (2016) NWLR
1266:Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth
1194:Neubauer, David W.; Meinhold, Stephen S. (2017).
995:
141:Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth
4039:
3736:Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
2792:District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
2072:Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
1423:
1193:
1187:
2087:
2085:
1898:
1896:
1828:"Whitehouse v Lemon, Whitehouse v Gay News Ltd"
1401:
1399:
1397:
685:Article Three of the United States Constitution
670:Article Three of the United States Constitution
3002:Permanent Mission of India v. City of New York
1926:
1924:
1220:
890:endorsed the "partial assignment" approach to
793:). Congress can override these principles via
161:Also, while there is no open standing per se,
145:Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act
3335:Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor
3143:American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton
2537:
2312:
2310:
2115:
2113:
612:
307:t would ... be a grave danger to escape
3343:Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson
2970:United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe
2615:United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Ideal Cement Co.
2517:Article on the history of standing in Canada
2082:
1893:
1394:
331:Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
181:have a low burden in establishing standing.
1921:
252:. The trilogy was summarized as follows in
225:
3247:Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co.
3034:Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.
2544:
2530:
2490:
2488:
2486:
2307:
2110:
1582:US tobacco v Minister for Consumer Affairs
1484:
1482:
1382:Standing to Sue at Common Law in Australia
619:
605:
2203:
2201:
1762:Fawehinmi v. President (2007)14 NWLR 275
784:
3816:FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
3728:Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation
1858:
1852:
1434:
1010:on other people's right to free speech.
754:
213:Frequently a litigant wishes to bring a
2483:
2439:
2433:
1758:
1756:
1754:
1479:
759:There are three standing requirements:
722:, (1922) which was authored by Justice
187:(friend of the court), and the various
98:
4040:
2198:
1700:Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance)
1634:Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil
1295:
1279:
1249:Textbook on International Human Rights
1058:Standing to challenge a contract award
831:Prohibition of generalized grievances:
269:Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance)
243:Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil
3952:
3903:
3401:
3096:
2994:Dolan v. United States Postal Service
2763:Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States
2567:
2525:
2287:. For the general standing rule, see
2021:
1620:Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada
1357:Sinclair v Marybourough Mining Warden
1261:
1259:
1257:
668:requirement of the judicial power of
591:Adequate and independent state ground
237:Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada
3760:Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
3255:Hartsville Oil Mill v. United States
2144:Federal Election Commission v. Akins
2046:Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
1771:Fawehinmi v. Akilu no. 2(1989) NWLR
1751:
912:
3973:Osborn v. Bank of the United States
3515:Toilet Goods Ass'n, Inc. v. Gardner
2882:Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino
2678:Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy
1869:from the original on April 26, 2016
1537:re Smith; Ex parte Rundle (1991) 6
13:
3648:Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India
3550:
3402:
3050:Jam v. International Finance Corp.
2591:Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co.
1254:
1070:
894:relator standing to sue under the
853:Recent development of the doctrine
127:or standing which is expressed in
14:
4064:
2834:The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon
2510:
2397:LII / Legal Information Institute
2318:Summers v. Earth Island Institute
2285:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1537749
1345:Standing in public interest cases
904:Summers v. Earth Island Institute
496:Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
293:
183:Australian courts also recognise
3097:
3010:Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
2393:"Substantial Interest: Standing"
1605:For example, under s. 18(1) the
923:, was a taxpayer standing case.
861:In another major standing case,
383:
375:
135:and common law decisions of the
3351:Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.
3042:OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs
2466:
2417:
2403:
2385:
2360:
2335:
2273:
2261:
2249:
2237:
2225:
2213:
2186:
2161:
2136:
2063:
2038:
2015:
1990:
1974:
1949:
1880:
1838:
1820:
1795:
1783:
1780:Senior Courts Act 1981 s.31(3).
1774:
1765:
1742:
1733:
1724:
1715:
1693:
1668:
1654:
1648:Minister of Justice v. Borowski
1640:
1626:
1612:
1599:
1575:
1548:
1531:
1508:
1454:
1439:. Pearson Education Australia.
1374:
249:Minister of Justice v. Borowski
4053:Legal doctrines and principles
3688:Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
3640:Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois
2978:Republic of Austria v. Altmann
2890:Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez
2568:
2411:Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §
2290:Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
2268:Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
2256:Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
2244:Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
2232:Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
2093:Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
1350:
1311:
1241:
1214:
996:Standing to challenge statutes
873:Endangered Species Act of 1973
864:Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
366:criminal injuries compensation
1:
3720:DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno
3449:Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer
3058:Republic of Sudan v. Harrison
2747:Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
2501:180 Cal. App. 4th 980
2368:DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno
1568:491 (18 September 2001),
1437:Administrative Law Law Briefs
1406:Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd
1180:
1097:
954:DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno
3664:City of Los Angeles v. Lyons
2858:Schillinger v. United States
2784:Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.
1472:553 (10 December 1999),
1416:27 (18 September 1981),
1110:On December 29, 2009, the
1089:
689:United States federal courts
191:have a presumed standing in
114:
7:
3904:
3433:Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez
2874:United States v. Wunderlich
1849:, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).
1276:493 (13 February 1980).
1133:
945:United States v. Richardson
936:United States Supreme Court
888:United States Supreme Court
886:, 529 U.S. 765 (2000), the
10:
4069:
3989:Mistretta v. United States
3953:
3215:Burton v. United States II
3191:City of St. Louis v. Myers
3066:Opati v. Republic of Sudan
2670:Murdock v. City of Memphis
1983:, by Steven L. Winter, 40
1112:California Court of Appeal
1051:was no longer applicable.
630:
274:
3959:
3948:
3912:
3899:
3834:
3800:TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez
3549:
3496:
3459:
3414:
3410:
3397:
3207:Burton v. United States I
3159:United States v. Jackalow
3135:Martin v. Hunter's Lessee
3105:
3092:
2810:
2773:
2712:
2657:
2580:
2576:
2563:
2222:, 468 U.S. at 757 (1984).
2210:, 468 U.S. at 755 (1984).
2195:, 468 U.S. at 752 (1984).
989:Supreme Court of Virginia
869:Secretary of the Interior
659:Constitutional Convention
338:Crown Prosecution Service
198:
4021:Bank Markazi v. Peterson
3792:Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski
3441:Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski
3231:Muskrat v. United States
3199:Barrett v. United States
2906:United States v. Stanley
2686:Fox Film Corp. v. Muller
2661:independent state ground
1859:Flanders, Henry (1874).
1592:520 (24 June 1988),
1501:591 (9 March 2000),
1380:Justice Brian J Preston,
1102:Californians may bring "
940:United States government
440:Constitutional avoidance
226:Public interest standing
4005:United States v. Hatter
3997:Peretz v. United States
3934:Cramer v. United States
3576:Massachusetts v. Mellon
3327:Thomas v. Union Carbide
3026:United States v. Bormes
2775:Rooker–Feldman doctrine
2723:United States v. Hudson
2440:Sassman, Wyatt (2015).
1562:[2001] FCA 1329
1466:[1999] FCA 1723
1367:473 (28 May 1975),
1322:[1995] FCA 1060
1223:Northwestern Law Review
934:feels is improper. The
871:interpreting §7 of the
823:provision of the Civil
802:General prohibition of
232:Supreme Court of Canada
137:High Court of Australia
3768:Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
3486:Nixon v. United States
3183:United States v. Klein
3074:Trump v. United States
2922:Saudi Arabia v. Nelson
2866:Feres v. United States
2842:Mississippi v. Johnson
2599:Burford v. Sun Oil Co.
1586:[1988] FCA 213
1078:Hollingsworth v. Perry
838:Zone of interest test:
785:Prudential limitations
319:
265:
3926:United States v. Burr
3875:Rucho v. Common Cause
3776:Texas v. Pennsylvania
3752:Bond v. United States
3608:Sierra Club v. Morton
3303:Arizona v. New Mexico
3287:Glidden Co. v. Zdanok
3263:Wisconsin v. Illinois
3167:Ex parte Vallandigham
3127:United States v. More
2817:presidential immunity
2478:152 Cal. App. 4th 349
2022:Varma, Corey (2016).
1998:Bond v. United States
1932:Frothingham v. Mellon
1495:[2000] HCA 11
1410:[1981] HCA 50
1361:[1975] HCA 17
1270:[1980] HCA 53
1251:. 4th Edition. 2010.
920:Frothingham v. Mellon
755:Standing requirements
744:Bond v. United States
713:Frothingham v. Mellon
683:requirement found in
480:Amount in controversy
393:United States federal
305:
260:
2850:United States v. Lee
1247:Smith, Rhona K. M.,
1175:Self-executing right
959:municipal government
804:third-party standing
732:Nineteenth Amendment
219:declaratory judgment
139:especially the case
99:International courts
3592:Altvater v. Freeman
3568:Fairchild v. Hughes
3478:Goldwater v. Carter
3425:DeFunis v. Odegaard
3111:Chisholm v. Georgia
2898:Nixon v. Fitzgerald
2279:Nathan D. Sturycz,
1957:Fairchild v. Hughes
791:prudential standing
738:and some statutes.
719:Fairchild v. Hughes
681:case or controversy
666:case or controversy
567:Anti-Injunction Act
435:Political questions
348:Mrs Mary Whitehouse
171:writ of prohibition
3981:Forrester v. White
3867:Vieth v. Jubelirer
3824:Murthy v. Missouri
3680:Diamond v. Charles
3560:Bailiff v. Tipping
3461:Political question
3279:Colegrove v. Green
3119:Marbury v. Madison
3018:Samantar v. Yousuf
2812:Sovereign immunity
2714:Federal common law
2553:U.S. Supreme Court
2270:, 504 U.S. at 568.
2258:, 504 U.S. at 563.
2246:, 504 U.S. at 564.
2234:, 504 U.S. at 562.
1809:Dunlop v Selfridge
1803:Tweddle v Atkinson
1708:2007-03-10 at the
1556:Ruddock v Vadarlis
1462:Transurban v Allan
1387:2014-03-02 at the
1145:Causation at trial
970:sovereign immunity
572:Sovereign immunity
343:Whitehouse v Lemon
325:, the doctrine of
208:administrative law
193:administrative law
70:environmental laws
4035:
4034:
4031:
4030:
4013:Stern v. Marshall
3944:
3943:
3895:
3894:
3891:
3890:
3881:Benisek v. Lamone
3859:Davis v. Bandemer
3808:Biden v. Nebraska
3784:Trump v. New York
3539:Trump v. New York
3393:
3392:
3375:Bowles v. Russell
3271:Crowell v. Benson
3175:Ex parte McCardle
3088:
3087:
3084:
3083:
2826:Little v. Barreme
2694:Harrison v. NAACP
2631:Younger v. Harris
1987:1371, July, 1988.
1815:Beswick v Beswick
1607:Federal Court Act
1517:Ogle v Strickland
1435:Kelly, M (2009).
1031:Lawrence v. Texas
913:Taxpayer standing
693:advisory opinions
643:United States law
629:
628:
538:
537:
415:Advisory opinions
352:blasphemous libel
189:Attorneys General
163:prerogative writs
123:understanding of
105:Council of Europe
92:constitutionality
84:District Attorney
4060:
3950:
3949:
3918:Ex parte Bollman
3901:
3900:
3412:
3411:
3399:
3398:
3383:Patchak v. Zinke
3094:
3093:
2930:Clinton v. Jones
2702:Michigan v. Long
2578:
2577:
2565:
2564:
2546:
2539:
2532:
2523:
2522:
2504:
2498:
2492:
2481:
2470:
2464:
2463:
2461:
2460:
2437:
2431:
2421:
2415:
2412:
2407:
2401:
2400:
2389:
2383:
2364:
2358:
2339:
2333:
2314:
2305:
2277:
2271:
2265:
2259:
2253:
2247:
2241:
2235:
2229:
2223:
2217:
2211:
2205:
2196:
2190:
2184:
2165:
2159:
2140:
2134:
2117:
2108:
2089:
2080:
2067:
2061:
2042:
2036:
2035:
2019:
2013:
1994:
1988:
1978:
1972:
1953:
1947:
1928:
1919:
1900:
1891:
1884:
1878:
1877:
1875:
1874:
1856:
1850:
1842:
1836:
1835:
1824:
1818:
1799:
1793:
1787:
1781:
1778:
1772:
1769:
1763:
1760:
1749:
1746:
1740:
1737:
1731:
1728:
1722:
1719:
1713:
1702:, 2 S.C.R. 607
1697:
1691:
1690:
1688:
1687:
1678:. Archived from
1672:
1666:
1658:
1652:
1651:, 2 S.C.R. 575.
1644:
1638:
1637:, 2 S.C.R. 265.
1630:
1624:
1623:, 1 S.C.R. 138.
1616:
1610:
1603:
1597:
1579:
1573:
1552:
1546:
1545:(WA, Australia).
1535:
1529:
1512:
1506:
1486:
1477:
1458:
1452:
1450:
1432:
1421:
1403:
1392:
1378:
1372:
1354:
1348:
1342:
1333:
1315:
1309:
1299:
1293:
1283:
1277:
1263:
1252:
1245:
1239:
1238:
1218:
1212:
1211:
1191:
1126:, and held that
1064:federal contract
1017:Martin v. Ziherl
901:In a 2009 case,
896:False Claims Act
882:In a 2000 case,
825:False Claims Act
621:
614:
607:
497:
470:Federal question
457:
456:
387:
380:
379:
370:Stephen Lawrence
119:Australia has a
63:chilling effects
4068:
4067:
4063:
4062:
4061:
4059:
4058:
4057:
4038:
4037:
4036:
4027:
3965:Stuart v. Laird
3955:
3940:
3908:
3887:
3830:
3672:Allen v. Wright
3632:Warth v. Seldin
3584:Ex parte Levitt
3545:
3492:
3455:
3406:
3389:
3151:Sheldon v. Sill
3101:
3080:
2815:
2806:
2769:
2708:
2660:
2653:
2572:
2559:
2550:
2513:
2508:
2507:
2494:
2493:
2484:
2471:
2467:
2458:
2456:
2438:
2434:
2422:
2418:
2410:
2408:
2404:
2391:
2390:
2386:
2365:
2361:
2340:
2336:
2315:
2308:
2278:
2274:
2266:
2262:
2254:
2250:
2242:
2238:
2230:
2226:
2220:Allen v. Wright
2218:
2214:
2208:Allen v. Wright
2206:
2199:
2193:Allen v. Wright
2191:
2187:
2169:Allen v. Wright
2166:
2162:
2141:
2137:
2118:
2111:
2090:
2083:
2068:
2064:
2043:
2039:
2020:
2016:
1995:
1991:
1979:
1975:
1954:
1950:
1929:
1922:
1904:Allen v. Wright
1901:
1894:
1885:
1881:
1872:
1870:
1857:
1853:
1846:Warth v. Seldin
1843:
1839:
1826:
1825:
1821:
1800:
1796:
1788:
1784:
1779:
1775:
1770:
1766:
1761:
1752:
1747:
1743:
1738:
1734:
1729:
1725:
1720:
1716:
1710:Wayback Machine
1698:
1694:
1685:
1683:
1674:
1673:
1669:
1665:, 1 S.C.R. 236
1659:
1655:
1645:
1641:
1631:
1627:
1617:
1613:
1604:
1600:
1580:
1576:
1553:
1549:
1536:
1532:
1513:
1509:
1487:
1480:
1459:
1455:
1447:
1433:
1424:
1404:
1395:
1389:Wayback Machine
1379:
1375:
1355:
1351:
1343:
1336:
1316:
1312:
1300:
1296:
1284:
1280:
1264:
1255:
1246:
1242:
1219:
1215:
1208:
1192:
1188:
1183:
1140:Actio popularis
1136:
1100:
1092:
1073:
1071:Ballot measures
1060:
1008:chilling effect
1003:First Amendment
998:
915:
855:
814:
787:
778:Redressability:
764:Injury-in-fact:
757:
749:Tenth Amendment
639:
625:
596:
593:
495:
444:
397:civil procedure
395:
378:
323:law of contract
296:
277:
228:
201:
182:
117:
101:
79:attorney's fees
17:
12:
11:
5:
4066:
4056:
4055:
4050:
4048:Standing (law)
4033:
4032:
4029:
4028:
4026:
4025:
4017:
4009:
4001:
3993:
3985:
3977:
3969:
3960:
3957:
3956:
3946:
3945:
3942:
3941:
3939:
3938:
3930:
3922:
3913:
3910:
3909:
3897:
3896:
3893:
3892:
3889:
3888:
3886:
3885:
3871:
3863:
3855:
3847:
3843:Hayburn's Case
3838:
3836:
3832:
3831:
3829:
3828:
3820:
3812:
3804:
3796:
3788:
3780:
3772:
3764:
3756:
3748:
3740:
3732:
3724:
3716:
3708:
3700:
3696:Raines v. Byrd
3692:
3684:
3676:
3668:
3660:
3652:
3644:
3636:
3628:
3620:
3612:
3604:
3600:Flast v. Cohen
3596:
3588:
3580:
3572:
3564:
3555:
3553:
3547:
3546:
3544:
3543:
3535:
3527:
3523:Laird v. Tatum
3519:
3511:
3502:
3500:
3494:
3493:
3491:
3490:
3482:
3474:
3465:
3463:
3457:
3456:
3454:
3453:
3445:
3437:
3429:
3420:
3418:
3408:
3407:
3404:Justiciability
3395:
3394:
3391:
3390:
3388:
3387:
3379:
3371:
3363:
3355:
3347:
3339:
3331:
3323:
3315:
3307:
3299:
3291:
3283:
3275:
3267:
3259:
3251:
3243:
3235:
3227:
3219:
3211:
3203:
3195:
3187:
3179:
3171:
3163:
3155:
3147:
3139:
3131:
3123:
3115:
3106:
3103:
3102:
3090:
3089:
3086:
3085:
3082:
3081:
3079:
3078:
3070:
3062:
3054:
3046:
3038:
3030:
3022:
3014:
3006:
2998:
2990:
2982:
2974:
2966:
2958:
2950:
2942:
2934:
2926:
2918:
2910:
2902:
2894:
2886:
2878:
2870:
2862:
2854:
2846:
2838:
2830:
2821:
2819:
2808:
2807:
2805:
2804:
2796:
2788:
2779:
2777:
2771:
2770:
2768:
2767:
2759:
2751:
2743:
2735:
2731:Swift v. Tyson
2727:
2718:
2716:
2710:
2709:
2707:
2706:
2698:
2690:
2682:
2674:
2665:
2663:
2655:
2654:
2652:
2651:
2643:
2635:
2627:
2619:
2611:
2603:
2595:
2586:
2584:
2574:
2573:
2561:
2560:
2549:
2548:
2541:
2534:
2526:
2520:
2519:
2512:
2511:External links
2509:
2506:
2505:
2482:
2465:
2432:
2416:
2402:
2384:
2359:
2343:Flast v. Cohen
2334:
2306:
2272:
2260:
2248:
2236:
2224:
2212:
2197:
2185:
2160:
2135:
2109:
2081:
2077:carbon dioxide
2062:
2037:
2014:
1989:
1973:
1948:
1920:
1892:
1879:
1851:
1837:
1819:
1794:
1782:
1773:
1764:
1750:
1741:
1732:
1723:
1714:
1692:
1667:
1653:
1639:
1625:
1611:
1598:
1574:
1547:
1530:
1507:
1478:
1453:
1445:
1422:
1393:
1373:
1349:
1334:
1310:
1294:
1278:
1253:
1240:
1213:
1206:
1185:
1184:
1182:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1172:
1167:
1165:Redressability
1162:
1157:
1152:
1147:
1142:
1135:
1132:
1099:
1096:
1091:
1088:
1072:
1069:
1059:
1056:
997:
994:
914:
911:
854:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
844:
835:
828:
786:
783:
782:
781:
775:
768:
756:
753:
736:judicial rules
724:Louis Brandeis
627:
626:
624:
623:
616:
609:
601:
598:
597:
595:
594:
589:
587:
583:Rooker–Feldman
579:
574:
569:
564:
559:
550:
547:
546:
540:
539:
536:
535:
534:
533:
526:
519:
509:
508:
502:
501:
500:
499:
492:
487:
482:
477:
472:
464:
463:
461:Subject-matter
453:
452:
446:
445:
443:
442:
437:
432:
427:
422:
417:
411:
408:
407:
405:Justiciability
401:
400:
389:
388:
377:
374:
295:
294:United Kingdom
292:
291:
290:
286:
276:
273:
227:
224:
200:
197:
116:
113:
100:
97:
88:
87:
66:
54:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4065:
4054:
4051:
4049:
4046:
4045:
4043:
4023:
4022:
4018:
4015:
4014:
4010:
4007:
4006:
4002:
3999:
3998:
3994:
3991:
3990:
3986:
3983:
3982:
3978:
3975:
3974:
3970:
3967:
3966:
3962:
3961:
3958:
3951:
3947:
3936:
3935:
3931:
3928:
3927:
3923:
3920:
3919:
3915:
3914:
3911:
3907:
3902:
3898:
3883:
3882:
3877:
3876:
3872:
3869:
3868:
3864:
3861:
3860:
3856:
3853:
3852:
3848:
3845:
3844:
3840:
3839:
3837:
3833:
3826:
3825:
3821:
3818:
3817:
3813:
3810:
3809:
3805:
3802:
3801:
3797:
3794:
3793:
3789:
3786:
3785:
3781:
3778:
3777:
3773:
3770:
3769:
3765:
3762:
3761:
3757:
3754:
3753:
3749:
3746:
3745:
3741:
3738:
3737:
3733:
3730:
3729:
3725:
3722:
3721:
3717:
3714:
3713:
3709:
3706:
3705:
3701:
3698:
3697:
3693:
3690:
3689:
3685:
3682:
3681:
3677:
3674:
3673:
3669:
3666:
3665:
3661:
3658:
3657:
3653:
3650:
3649:
3645:
3642:
3641:
3637:
3634:
3633:
3629:
3626:
3625:
3621:
3618:
3617:
3613:
3610:
3609:
3605:
3602:
3601:
3597:
3594:
3593:
3589:
3586:
3585:
3581:
3578:
3577:
3573:
3570:
3569:
3565:
3562:
3561:
3557:
3556:
3554:
3552:
3548:
3541:
3540:
3536:
3533:
3532:
3528:
3525:
3524:
3520:
3517:
3516:
3512:
3509:
3508:
3507:Poe v. Ullman
3504:
3503:
3501:
3499:
3495:
3488:
3487:
3483:
3480:
3479:
3475:
3472:
3471:
3470:Baker v. Carr
3467:
3466:
3464:
3462:
3458:
3451:
3450:
3446:
3443:
3442:
3438:
3435:
3434:
3430:
3427:
3426:
3422:
3421:
3419:
3417:
3413:
3409:
3405:
3400:
3396:
3385:
3384:
3380:
3377:
3376:
3372:
3369:
3368:
3364:
3361:
3360:
3356:
3353:
3352:
3348:
3345:
3344:
3340:
3337:
3336:
3332:
3329:
3328:
3324:
3321:
3320:
3316:
3313:
3312:
3308:
3305:
3304:
3300:
3297:
3296:
3292:
3289:
3288:
3284:
3281:
3280:
3276:
3273:
3272:
3268:
3265:
3264:
3260:
3257:
3256:
3252:
3249:
3248:
3244:
3241:
3240:
3236:
3233:
3232:
3228:
3225:
3224:
3220:
3217:
3216:
3212:
3209:
3208:
3204:
3201:
3200:
3196:
3193:
3192:
3188:
3185:
3184:
3180:
3177:
3176:
3172:
3169:
3168:
3164:
3161:
3160:
3156:
3153:
3152:
3148:
3145:
3144:
3140:
3137:
3136:
3132:
3129:
3128:
3124:
3121:
3120:
3116:
3113:
3112:
3108:
3107:
3104:
3100:
3095:
3091:
3076:
3075:
3071:
3068:
3067:
3063:
3060:
3059:
3055:
3052:
3051:
3047:
3044:
3043:
3039:
3036:
3035:
3031:
3028:
3027:
3023:
3020:
3019:
3015:
3012:
3011:
3007:
3004:
3003:
2999:
2996:
2995:
2991:
2988:
2987:
2983:
2980:
2979:
2975:
2972:
2971:
2967:
2964:
2963:
2959:
2956:
2955:
2951:
2948:
2947:
2943:
2940:
2939:
2935:
2932:
2931:
2927:
2924:
2923:
2919:
2916:
2915:
2911:
2908:
2907:
2903:
2900:
2899:
2895:
2892:
2891:
2887:
2884:
2883:
2879:
2876:
2875:
2871:
2868:
2867:
2863:
2860:
2859:
2855:
2852:
2851:
2847:
2844:
2843:
2839:
2836:
2835:
2831:
2828:
2827:
2823:
2822:
2820:
2818:
2813:
2809:
2802:
2801:
2797:
2794:
2793:
2789:
2786:
2785:
2781:
2780:
2778:
2776:
2772:
2765:
2764:
2760:
2757:
2756:
2752:
2749:
2748:
2744:
2741:
2740:
2736:
2733:
2732:
2728:
2725:
2724:
2720:
2719:
2717:
2715:
2711:
2704:
2703:
2699:
2696:
2695:
2691:
2688:
2687:
2683:
2680:
2679:
2675:
2672:
2671:
2667:
2666:
2664:
2662:
2656:
2649:
2648:
2644:
2641:
2640:
2636:
2633:
2632:
2628:
2625:
2624:
2620:
2617:
2616:
2612:
2609:
2608:
2604:
2601:
2600:
2596:
2593:
2592:
2588:
2587:
2585:
2583:
2579:
2575:
2571:
2566:
2562:
2557:
2554:
2547:
2542:
2540:
2535:
2533:
2528:
2527:
2524:
2518:
2515:
2514:
2502:
2497:
2491:
2489:
2487:
2479:
2475:
2469:
2455:
2451:
2447:
2443:
2436:
2429:
2425:
2420:
2414:
2406:
2398:
2394:
2388:
2381:
2378:
2374:
2370:
2369:
2363:
2356:
2353:
2349:
2345:
2344:
2338:
2331:
2328:
2324:
2320:
2319:
2313:
2311:
2303:
2300:
2296:
2292:
2291:
2286:
2282:
2276:
2269:
2264:
2257:
2252:
2245:
2240:
2233:
2228:
2221:
2216:
2209:
2204:
2202:
2194:
2189:
2182:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2170:
2164:
2157:
2154:
2150:
2146:
2145:
2139:
2132:
2129:
2125:
2121:
2116:
2114:
2106:
2103:
2099:
2095:
2094:
2088:
2086:
2078:
2074:
2073:
2069:For example,
2066:
2059:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2047:
2041:
2033:
2029:
2025:
2018:
2011:
2008:
2004:
2000:
1999:
1993:
1986:
1985:Stan. L. Rev.
1982:
1977:
1970:
1967:
1963:
1959:
1958:
1952:
1945:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1933:
1927:
1925:
1917:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1905:
1899:
1897:
1889:
1883:
1868:
1864:
1863:
1855:
1848:
1847:
1841:
1833:
1829:
1823:
1817:
1816:
1811:
1810:
1805:
1804:
1798:
1791:
1786:
1777:
1768:
1759:
1757:
1755:
1745:
1736:
1727:
1718:
1711:
1707:
1704:
1701:
1696:
1682:on 2007-03-10
1681:
1677:
1671:
1664:
1663:
1657:
1650:
1649:
1643:
1636:
1635:
1629:
1622:
1621:
1615:
1608:
1602:
1595:
1594:Federal Court
1591:
1587:
1583:
1578:
1571:
1570:Federal Court
1567:
1564:, (2001) 110
1563:
1559:
1557:
1551:
1544:
1543:Supreme Court
1540:
1534:
1527:
1526:Federal Court
1523:
1519:
1518:
1511:
1504:
1500:
1497:, (2000) 200
1496:
1492:
1491:
1485:
1483:
1475:
1474:Federal Court
1471:
1467:
1463:
1457:
1448:
1446:9780733994302
1442:
1438:
1431:
1429:
1427:
1419:
1415:
1412:, (1981) 149
1411:
1407:
1402:
1400:
1398:
1390:
1386:
1383:
1377:
1370:
1366:
1363:, (1975) 132
1362:
1358:
1353:
1346:
1341:
1339:
1331:
1330:Federal Court
1327:
1324:, (1995) 128
1323:
1319:
1314:
1307:
1303:
1298:
1291:
1287:
1282:
1275:
1272:, (1980) 146
1271:
1267:
1262:
1260:
1258:
1250:
1244:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1217:
1209:
1207:9781337025942
1203:
1199:
1198:
1190:
1186:
1176:
1173:
1171:
1168:
1166:
1163:
1161:
1158:
1156:
1153:
1151:
1148:
1146:
1143:
1141:
1138:
1137:
1131:
1129:
1125:
1124:
1118:
1113:
1108:
1105:
1095:
1087:
1084:
1083:Proposition 8
1080:
1079:
1068:
1065:
1055:
1052:
1050:
1045:
1040:
1035:
1033:
1032:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1018:
1011:
1009:
1004:
993:
990:
986:
982:
978:
973:
971:
966:
964:
963:federal court
960:
956:
955:
949:
948:
946:
941:
937:
933:
929:
924:
922:
921:
910:
907:
905:
899:
897:
893:
889:
885:
880:
876:
874:
870:
866:
865:
859:
845:
842:
841:
839:
836:
832:
829:
826:
822:
818:
812:
811:1st Amendment
807:
805:
800:
799:
798:
796:
792:
779:
776:
772:
769:
765:
762:
761:
760:
752:
750:
746:
745:
739:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
720:
715:
714:
709:
704:
702:
698:
694:
691:from issuing
690:
686:
682:
677:
675:
671:
667:
662:
660:
656:
655:John Rutledge
652:
648:
647:Supreme Court
644:
638:
634:
622:
617:
615:
610:
608:
603:
602:
600:
599:
592:
588:
586:
584:
580:
578:
575:
573:
570:
568:
565:
563:
560:
558:
556:
552:
551:
549:
548:
545:
542:
541:
532:
531:
527:
525:
524:
520:
518:
517:
513:
512:
511:
510:
507:
504:
503:
498:
493:
491:
488:
486:
483:
481:
478:
476:
473:
471:
468:
467:
466:
465:
462:
459:
458:
455:
454:
451:
448:
447:
441:
438:
436:
433:
431:
428:
426:
423:
421:
418:
416:
413:
412:
410:
409:
406:
403:
402:
398:
394:
391:
390:
386:
382:
381:
376:United States
373:
371:
367:
363:
359:
358:
353:
349:
345:
344:
339:
334:
332:
328:
324:
318:
316:
312:
311:
304:
302:
287:
283:
282:
281:
272:
270:
264:
259:
257:
256:
251:
250:
245:
244:
239:
238:
233:
223:
220:
216:
211:
209:
206:
196:
194:
190:
186:
185:amicus curiae
180:
179:habeas corpus
176:
172:
168:
164:
159:
157:
152:
149:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
112:
110:
106:
96:
93:
85:
80:
76:
71:
67:
64:
60:
55:
52:
48:
44:
40:
36:
35:
34:
32:
28:
27:
22:
16:Legal concept
4019:
4011:
4003:
3995:
3987:
3979:
3971:
3963:
3932:
3924:
3916:
3879:
3873:
3865:
3857:
3849:
3841:
3822:
3814:
3806:
3798:
3790:
3782:
3774:
3766:
3758:
3750:
3742:
3734:
3726:
3718:
3710:
3704:FEC v. Akins
3702:
3694:
3686:
3678:
3670:
3662:
3654:
3646:
3638:
3630:
3622:
3614:
3606:
3598:
3590:
3582:
3574:
3566:
3558:
3537:
3529:
3521:
3513:
3505:
3484:
3476:
3468:
3447:
3439:
3431:
3423:
3381:
3373:
3365:
3357:
3349:
3341:
3333:
3325:
3317:
3309:
3301:
3293:
3285:
3277:
3269:
3261:
3253:
3245:
3237:
3229:
3221:
3213:
3205:
3197:
3189:
3181:
3173:
3165:
3157:
3149:
3141:
3133:
3125:
3117:
3109:
3099:Jurisdiction
3072:
3064:
3056:
3048:
3040:
3032:
3024:
3016:
3008:
3000:
2992:
2984:
2976:
2968:
2960:
2952:
2944:
2936:
2928:
2920:
2912:
2904:
2896:
2888:
2880:
2872:
2864:
2856:
2848:
2840:
2832:
2824:
2798:
2790:
2782:
2761:
2753:
2745:
2737:
2729:
2721:
2700:
2692:
2684:
2676:
2668:
2659:Adequate and
2645:
2637:
2629:
2621:
2613:
2605:
2597:
2589:
2503: (2009).
2495:
2473:
2468:
2457:. Retrieved
2445:
2435:
2419:
2405:
2396:
2387:
2382: (2006).
2366:
2362:
2357: (1968).
2341:
2337:
2316:
2304: (1992).
2288:
2280:
2275:
2267:
2263:
2255:
2251:
2243:
2239:
2231:
2227:
2219:
2215:
2207:
2192:
2188:
2183: (1984).
2167:
2163:
2158: (1998).
2142:
2138:
2133: (2000).
2119:
2107: (1992).
2091:
2070:
2065:
2044:
2040:
2031:
2027:
2017:
2012: (2011).
1996:
1992:
1984:
1980:
1976:
1971: (1922).
1955:
1951:
1946: (1923).
1930:
1918: (1984).
1902:
1886:Haw, James:
1882:
1871:. Retrieved
1861:
1854:
1844:
1840:
1831:
1822:
1813:
1807:
1801:
1797:
1789:
1785:
1776:
1767:
1744:
1735:
1726:
1717:
1699:
1695:
1684:. Retrieved
1680:the original
1670:
1660:
1656:
1646:
1642:
1632:
1628:
1618:
1614:
1606:
1601:
1596:(Australia).
1588:, (1988) 20
1581:
1577:
1572:(Australia).
1558:(Tampa case)
1554:
1550:
1533:
1528:(Australia).
1515:
1510:
1505:(Australia).
1488:
1476:(Australia).
1468:, (1999) 95
1461:
1456:
1436:
1420:(Australia).
1405:
1376:
1371:(Australia).
1356:
1352:
1332:(Australia).
1317:
1313:
1301:
1297:
1285:
1281:
1265:
1248:
1243:
1226:
1222:
1216:
1196:
1189:
1127:
1121:
1116:
1109:
1101:
1093:
1076:
1074:
1061:
1053:
1048:
1043:
1036:
1029:
1026:Zysk v. Zysk
1025:
1015:
1012:
999:
974:
967:
952:
950:
943:
925:
918:
916:
902:
900:
883:
881:
877:
862:
860:
856:
837:
830:
801:
790:
788:
777:
770:
763:
758:
742:
741:In 2011, in
740:
727:
717:
711:
705:
678:
663:
640:
582:
554:
530:Quasi in rem
528:
521:
514:
485:Supplemental
450:Jurisdiction
419:
355:
341:
335:
320:
315:locus standi
314:
308:
306:
301:Lord Diplock
297:
278:
268:
266:
261:
253:
247:
241:
235:
229:
215:civil action
212:
202:
175:quo warranto
160:
153:
150:
144:
140:
131:such as the
125:locus standi
124:
118:
109:locus standi
108:
102:
89:
26:locus standi
25:
24:
20:
18:
2556:Article III
2472:See, e.g.,
2332: (2009)
2060: (2013)
1832:lawindexpro
1039:fornication
817:next friend
701:justiciable
516:In personam
362:Denis Lemon
77:to receive
65:" doctrine.
47:law is void
4042:Categories
2582:Abstention
2570:Federalism
2459:2022-12-27
2413: 526a
1873:2008-04-29
1686:2006-06-08
1520:(1986) 13
1503:High Court
1418:High Court
1369:High Court
1181:References
1150:Injunction
1128:jus tertii
1123:jus tertii
1098:California
977:California
771:Causation:
687:prohibits
631:See also:
577:Abrogation
562:Abstention
544:Federalism
280:They are:
167:certiorari
121:common law
49:or can be
1792:A.C. 617.
1514:See also
1090:State law
728:Fairchild
674:§ 2, cl.1
475:Diversity
399:doctrines
156:plaintiff
115:Australia
86:to do so.
75:plaintiff
51:nullified
3551:Standing
3498:Ripeness
3416:Mootness
2558:case law
1916:737, 752
1867:Archived
1706:Archived
1385:Archived
1306:s 3
1290:s 5
1134:See also
1104:taxpayer
1044:Lawrence
985:Virginia
932:taxpayer
708:American
699:, and a
651:litigant
637:mootness
633:ripeness
585:doctrine
557:doctrine
506:Personal
430:Mootness
425:Ripeness
420:Standing
357:Gay News
303:put it:
205:Canadian
129:statutes
21:standing
19:In law,
3906:Treason
2480:(2007).
2454:2977348
1235:2027130
1229:: 169.
981:Florida
928:lawsuit
892:qui tam
821:qui tam
795:statute
490:Removal
327:privity
321:In the
275:Nigeria
195:cases.
43:damages
39:statute
4024:(2016)
4016:(2011)
4008:(2001)
4000:(1991)
3992:(1989)
3984:(1988)
3976:(1824)
3968:(1803)
3954:Others
3937:(1945)
3929:(1807)
3921:(1807)
3884:(2019)
3870:(2004)
3862:(1986)
3854:(1985)
3846:(1792)
3835:Others
3827:(2024)
3819:(2024)
3811:(2023)
3803:(2021)
3795:(2021)
3787:(2020)
3779:(2020)
3771:(2016)
3763:(2013)
3755:(2011)
3747:(2011)
3739:(2007)
3731:(2007)
3723:(2006)
3715:(2000)
3707:(1998)
3699:(1997)
3691:(1992)
3683:(1986)
3675:(1984)
3667:(1983)
3659:(1982)
3651:(1978)
3643:(1977)
3635:(1975)
3627:(1974)
3619:(1973)
3611:(1972)
3603:(1968)
3595:(1943)
3587:(1937)
3579:(1923)
3571:(1922)
3563:(1805)
3542:(2020)
3534:(1985)
3526:(1972)
3518:(1967)
3510:(1961)
3489:(1993)
3481:(1979)
3473:(1962)
3452:(2023)
3444:(2021)
3436:(2016)
3428:(1974)
3386:(2018)
3378:(2007)
3370:(2005)
3362:(2002)
3354:(1995)
3346:(1986)
3338:(1986)
3330:(1985)
3322:(1982)
3314:(1977)
3306:(1976)
3298:(1974)
3290:(1962)
3282:(1946)
3274:(1932)
3266:(1929)
3258:(1926)
3250:(1921)
3242:(1916)
3234:(1911)
3226:(1908)
3218:(1906)
3210:(1905)
3202:(1898)
3194:(1885)
3186:(1871)
3178:(1869)
3170:(1864)
3162:(1862)
3154:(1850)
3146:(1828)
3138:(1816)
3130:(1805)
3122:(1803)
3114:(1793)
3077:(2024)
3069:(2020)
3061:(2019)
3053:(2019)
3045:(2015)
3037:(2014)
3029:(2012)
3021:(2010)
3013:(2008)
3005:(2007)
2997:(2006)
2989:(2005)
2981:(2004)
2973:(2003)
2965:(2003)
2957:(2001)
2949:(1999)
2941:(1998)
2933:(1997)
2925:(1993)
2917:(1991)
2909:(1987)
2901:(1982)
2893:(1978)
2885:(1964)
2877:(1951)
2869:(1950)
2861:(1894)
2853:(1882)
2845:(1867)
2837:(1812)
2829:(1804)
2803:(2005)
2795:(1983)
2787:(1923)
2766:(1943)
2758:(1938)
2750:(1938)
2742:(1928)
2734:(1842)
2726:(1812)
2705:(1983)
2697:(1959)
2689:(1935)
2681:(1896)
2673:(1875)
2650:(1983)
2642:(1976)
2634:(1971)
2626:(1964)
2618:(1962)
2610:(1959)
2602:(1943)
2594:(1941)
2499:,
2452:
2371:,
2346:,
2321:,
2293:,
2172:,
2147:,
2122:,
2096:,
2049:,
2001:,
1960:,
1935:,
1907:,
1890:(1997)
1443:
1304:(Cth)
1288:(Cth)
1233:
1204:
1155:Injury
1117:always
1022:herpes
987:, the
774:court.
645:, the
523:In rem
346:where
310:lacuna
246:, and
217:for a
199:Canada
2375:
2350:
2325:
2297:
2176:
2151:
2126:
2100:
2053:
2005:
1964:
1939:
1911:
1584:
1560:
1541:295,
1524:306,
1493:
1464:
1408:
1359:
1328:238,
1320:
1268:
1160:Merit
961:in a
767:both.
726:. In
165:like
31:court
2450:SSRN
2446:SSRN
2377:U.S.
2352:U.S.
2327:U.S.
2299:U.S.
2178:U.S.
2153:U.S.
2128:U.S.
2102:U.S.
2055:U.S.
2034:(4).
2007:U.S.
1966:U.S.
1941:U.S.
1913:U.S.
1460:see
1441:ISBN
1308:(4).
1231:SSRN
1202:ISBN
1049:Zysk
706:The
697:ripe
635:and
555:Erie
230:The
177:and
103:The
2814:and
2380:332
2373:547
2348:392
2330:488
2323:555
2302:555
2295:504
2181:737
2174:468
2149:524
2131:765
2124:529
2105:555
2098:504
2058:398
2051:568
2010:211
2003:564
1969:126
1962:258
1944:447
1937:262
1909:468
1590:FCR
1566:FCR
1539:WAR
1522:FCR
1499:CLR
1470:FCR
1414:CLR
1365:CLR
1326:ALR
1274:CLR
1227:107
1075:In
975:In
951:In
641:In
203:In
23:or
4044::
3878:/
2485:^
2476:,
2448:.
2444:.
2426:,
2395:.
2355:83
2309:^
2200:^
2156:11
2112:^
2084:^
2032:32
2030:.
2026:.
1923:^
1895:^
1830:.
1812:,
1806:,
1753:^
1481:^
1425:^
1396:^
1337:^
1256:^
1225:.
965:.
797::
751:.
672:,
372:.
360:,
271:.
258::
240:,
173:,
169:,
111:.
2545:e
2538:t
2531:v
2462:.
2399:.
1876:.
1834:.
1712:.
1689:.
1451:.
1449:.
1391:.
1292:.
1237:.
1210:.
947:.
906:,
827:.
806::
620:e
613:t
606:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.