Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
States and individuals have no Article III standing to block a federal individual mandate of $0 because there is no penalty: 7–2 TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez: 2021: Only plaintiffs concretely harmed by a defendant's statutory violation have Article III standing to seek damages against that private defendant in federal court: 5–4 FDA v.
There is no open standing, [8] [4] unless statute allows it, [9] or represents needs of a specified class of people. [10] [11] The issue is one of remoteness. [12] [13] [14] Standing may apply to class of aggrieved people, [11] where essentially the closeness of the plaintiff to the subject matter is the test. [15]
Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case related to antitrust laws related to third-party resellers. [1] The case centers on Apple Inc.'s App Store, and whether consumers of apps offered through the store have Article III standing under federal antitrust laws to bring a class-action antitrust lawsuit against Apple for practices it uses to regulate the ...
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Court case dealing with standing under Article III of the Constitution related to class-action suits against private defendants. In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that only those that can show concrete harm have standing to seek damages against private defendants.
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]
[I]f a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter. Standing; Mootness: The Court will not [rule] upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court case that involved issues concerning statutory standing in antitrust law.. The decision established the rule that indirect purchasers of goods or services along a supply chain cannot seek damages for antitrust violations committed by the original manufacturer or service provider, but it permitted such claims ...