Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
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 ...
In cases where no such injury is threatened, the courts tend to deny standing. In Kowalski v. Tesmer, [16] the Court denied standing to Michigan attorneys who sued to challenge state law that restricted appointment of appellate counsel for indigent defendants who had pleaded guilty. The attorneys asserted that the indigent defendants ...
Notwithstanding these findings, the court declined to reverse the foreclosure judgment, finding that: (1) the borrower was given ample notice that Capital One serviced the loan on behalf of ...
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 Commonwealth Court has ruled that a county land preservation board's decision not to take enforcement action over an alleged conservation easement violation is not appealable to a trial court.
Justiciability concerns the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority. [1] It includes, but is not limited to, the legal concept of standing, which is used to determine if the party bringing the suit is a party appropriate to establishing whether an actual adversarial issue exists. [2]
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.