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.
Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason. Section 1 of Article Three vests the judicial power of the United States in "one supreme Court", as well as "inferior courts" established by Congress.
Article III of the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear such cases, so long as the United States Congress passes a statute to that effect. However, when Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the newly created federal courts to hear such cases, it initially chose not to allow the lower federal courts to possess federal question jurisdiction for fear ...
Actual dispute – the lawsuit concerns a "case or controversy" under the meaning of Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution [11] Standing – the party bringing the suit must have (1) a particularized and concrete injury, (2) a causal connection between the complained-of conduct and that injury, and (3) a likelihood that a favorable ...
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."
Article III "case or controversy" requirement of standing to sue met by members of SCRAP who alleged harm from the adverse effects of a 2.5 percent across-the-board nationwide railroad freight rate increase on materials capable of being recycled approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The Court also concluded that, at such an ...
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the standing of taxpayers to challenge state tax laws in federal court. . The Court unanimously ruled that state taxpayers did not have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers
These cases deal with the jurisdiction of United States federal courts pursuant to Article Three of the United States Constitution. Subcategories This category has the following 22 subcategories, out of 22 total.