FACTOID # 10: The total number of state executions in 2005 was 60: 19 in Texas and 41 elsewhere. The racial split was 19 Black and 41 White.
 
 Home   Encyclopedia   Statistics   States A-Z   Flags   Maps   FAQ   About 
   
 
WHAT'S NEW
 

SEARCH ALL

FACTS & STATISTICS    Advanced view

Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 

 

(* = Graphable)

 

 


Encyclopedia > Standing (law)

In law, standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged. In the United States, for example, a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will 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. In order to sue to have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for whoever is suing to be there. To put it simply, the party suing has to have something to lose if the law is left on the books. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless they have automatic standing by action of law. Law (from the late Old English lagu of probable North Germanic origin) in politics and jurisprudence, is a set of rules or norms of conduct which mandate, forbid or permit specified relationships among people and organizations, intended to provide methods for ensuring the impartial treatment of such people, and provide... A court is an official, public forum which a sovereign establishes by lawful authority to adjudicate disputes, and to dispense civil, labour, administrative and criminal justice under the law. ... In the United States, constitutional law generally refers to the provisions of the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. ... A plaintiff, also known as a claimant or complainant, is the party who initiates a lawsuit (also known as an action) before a court. ...

Contents


United States


United States Federal
civil procedure doctrines
Justiciability
Advisory opinions
Standing  · Ripeness  · Mootness
Political questions
Jurisdiction
* Subject-matter jurisdiction:
Federal question jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction
Removal jurisdiction
Amount in controversy
* Personal jurisdiction:
Jurisdiction in rem
Minimum contacts
Federalism
Erie doctrine  · Abstention
Sovereign immunity  · Abrogation
Rooker-Feldman doctrine
Adequate and
independent state ground
edit this template

The Supreme Court of the United States has stated, “In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). Image File history File links Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court. ... This law-related article does not cite its references or sources. ... Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the process that courts will follow when hearing cases of a civil nature (a civil action). These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced, what kind of service of process is required, the types of pleadings or... Justiciability is a term used in civil procedure to describe whether a dispute is capable of being settled by a court of law. ... An advisory opinion, in civil procedure, is an opinion issued by a court that does not have the effect of resolving a specific legal case, but merely advises on the constitutionality or interpretation of a law. ... In law, ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; for example, if a law of ambiguous quality has been enacted but never applied, a case challenging that law lacks the ripeness necessary for a decision. ... This article is about the law term moot. ... In United States law, a ruling that a matter in controversy is a political question is a statement by a federal court, declining to rule in a case because: 1) the U.S. Constitution has committed decision-making on this subject to another branch of the federal government; 2) there... In law, jurisdiction from the Latin jus, juris meaning law and dicere meaning to speak, is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted body or to a person to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. ... Subject matter jurisdiction is a legal term used in civil procedure to indicate that a case must be entered in the proper court of law based on the nature of the claim. ... Federal question jurisdiction is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of... Diversity jurisdiction is a term used in civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States district court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the parties are diverse, meaning that they come from different states. ... In the United States, removal jurisdiction refers to the power of a defendant to move a lawsuit filed in state court to the Federal district court of the original courts district. ... Amount in controversy (sometimes called jurisdictional amount) is a term used in United States civil procedure to denote a requirement that persons seeking to bring a lawsuit in a particular court must be suing for a certain minimum amount before that court may hear the case. ... Personal jurisdiction, jurisdiction of (or over) the person, or jurisdiction in personam is the power of a court to require a party (usually the defendant) or a witness to come before the court. ... Sometimes a court may exercise jurisdiction over property located within the perimeter of its powers without regard to personal jurisdiction over the litigants; this is called jurisdiction in rem. ... Minimum contacts is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to determine when it is appropriate for a court in one state to assert in personam jurisdiction (i. ... Federalism is the idea of a group or body of members that are bound together (latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. ... The Erie doctrine is a fundamental legal doctrine of Civil procedure in the American legal system that stems from Supreme court Justice Louis Brandeis watershed opinion in the landmark decision of Erie Railroad Co. ... An abstention doctrine is any one of several doctrines that a United States federal court might (or in some cases must) apply to refuse to hear a case, when hearing the case would potentially intrude upon the powers of the state courts. ... Sovereign immunity or crown immunity is a type of immunity that, in common law jurisdictions traces its origins from early English law. ... The abrogation doctrine is a doctrine in United States constitutional law which permits the U.S. Congress to allow lawsuits seeking monetary damages against individual U.S. states, so long as this is usually done pursuant to a constitutional limitation on the power of the states. ... The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a rule of civil procedure enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in two cases, Rooker v. ... The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. ... The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States and leads the judicial branch of the United States federal government. ... Categories: Move to Wiktionary | Law stubs | Legal terms ... Holding Petitioners lack standing to sue when not directly injured by the defendant. ... // Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ... 1975 (MCMLXXV) was a common year starting on Wednesday (the link is to a full 1975 calendar). ...


There are a number of requirements that a plaintiff must establish in order to have standing before a federal court. Some are based on the case and controversy requirement of the judicial power of Article Three of the United States Constitution, § 2, cl.1. As stated there, “The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . .[and] 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. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 752 (1984). Federal courts may exercise power only “in the last resort, and as a necessity.” Id. at 752. The case or controversy clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. ... Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal (national) government. ... Allen v. ... // Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ... 1984 (MCMLXXXIV) was a leap year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ...


Constitutional requirements

There are three constitutional standing requirements:

  1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury - an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual, imminent, distinct, and palpable, not abstract.
  2. Causation: 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 court.
  3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).

Holding Respondents, wildlife conservation and other environmental organizations, filed an action in the Federal Courts, seeking a declaratory judgment that the new regulation erred as to § 7(a)(2)s of the Endangered Species Act (1973)s geographic scope, and an injunction requiring the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate... // Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ... 1992 (MCMXCII) was a leap year starting on Wednesday. ...

Prudential limitations

Additionally, there are three major prudential (judicially created) standing principles. Congress can override these principles via statute, but Congress cannot change the three constitutional standing requirements.

  1. Prohibition of Third Party Standing: A party may only assert his or her 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 the law into the rights of others.
  2. Prohibition of Generalized Grievances: A plaintiff cannot sue if the injury is widely shared in an undifferentiated way with many people. For example, 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 more appropriately addressed in the representative branches
  3. Zone of Interest Test: There are in fact two tests used by the United States Supreme Court for the Zone of Interest
    1. Zone of Injury - The injury is the kind of injury that Congress expected might be addressed under the statute. Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998)
    2. Zone of Interests - The party is within the zone of interest protected by the statute or constitutional provision. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984).

Third party standing is a term of the law of civil procedure that describes when one party may file a lawsuit on behalf of another party. ... Taxpayer standing is the concept that any person who pays taxes should have standing to file a lawsuit against the taxing body if that body allocates funds in a way that the taxpayer feels is improper. ... Holding --- Court membership Case opinions Laws applied --- Federal Election Commission v. ... // Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ... 1998 (MCMXCVIII) was a common year starting on Thursday of the Gregorian calendar, and was designated the International Year of the Ocean. ... Allen v. ... // Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ... 1984 (MCMLXXXIV) was a leap year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ...

Recent development of the doctrine

In 1984, the Supreme Court reviewed and further outlined the standing requirements in Allen v. Wright, a major ruling concerning the meaning of the three constitutional standing requirements of injury, causation, and redressability. Allen, 468 U.S. at 752. ... // Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ...


In the suit, parents of black public school children alleged that the Internal Revenue Service was 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. Id. at 755. 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. Id. “The injury alleged was not fairly traceable to the Government conduct respondents challenge as unlawful.” Id. at 757. // Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ... // Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ... // Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ...


In another major standing case, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the Supreme Court elaborated on the redressability requirement for standing. 504 U.S. 555 (1992). The case involved a challenge to a rule promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior interpreting §7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (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. Id. at 562. 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 showed how damage to the species would produce imminent injury to the plaintiffs. Id. at 564. 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.” Id. at 563. Holding Respondents, wildlife conservation and other environmental organizations, filed an action in the Federal Courts, seeking a declaratory judgment that the new regulation erred as to § 7(a)(2)s of the Endangered Species Act (1973)s geographic scope, and an injunction requiring the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate... // Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ... 1992 (MCMXCII) was a leap year starting on Wednesday. ... // Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ... // Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ... // Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ...


Beyond failing to show injury, the Court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the standing requirement of redressability. Id. at 568. 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 projects.” Id. This programmatic approach has “obvious difficulties insofar as proof of causation or redressability is concerned.” Id. // Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ... // Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ... // Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ...


Canada

In Canadian administrative law, 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. Administrative law is the body of law that arises from the activities of administrative agencies of government. ...


Frequently a litigant wishes to bring a civil action for a declaratory judgment 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. A lawsuit is a civil action brought before a court in order to recover a right, obtain damages for an injury, obtain an injunction to prevent an injury, or obtain a declaratory judgment to prevent future legal disputes. ... A declaratory judgment is a judgment of a court which declares what rights each party in a dispute should have, but does not order any action or result in any legal damages. ...


In constitutional cases, the Supreme Court of Canada developed the concept of public-interest standing in three cases commonly called "the Standing trilogy": Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138, Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265, and Minister of Justice v. Borowski, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575. The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236: The Supreme Court Building in Ottawa The Supreme Court of Canada (French: Cour suprême du Canada) is highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeal for all litigants in the Canadian justice system. ... Minister of Justice (Canada) v. ... Canadian Council of Churches v. ...

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 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?[1]

Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found in Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607 [2].


External links

  • Article on the history of standing in Canada

  Results from FactBites:
 
Standing (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (1238 words)
In law, standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged.
The Supreme Court of the United States has stated, “In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v.
In Canadian administrative law, 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.
Winter, Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance (1988) (19064 words)
It is almost de rigueur for articles on standing to quote Professor Freund's testimony to Congress that the concept of standing is "among the most amorphous in the entire domain of public law." n4 One of the traditional criticisms of standing law is that it is confusing and seemingly incoherent.
One of the constant analytic loops of standing law is the characterization of the injury that is sufficient to confer standing.
Finally, the opinion invoked the law of nuisance as its paradigm, an analogy underlining the degree to which the notion of "standing" was bounded by the relevant substantive law and, thus, undermining the Courts generalized assertion that a plaintiff could not sue on behalf of others.
  More results at FactBites »

 
 

COMMENTARY     


Share your thoughts, questions and commentary here
Your name
Your comments

Want to know more?
Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 


Press Releases |  Feeds | Contact
The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL.
Images may be subject to relevant owners' copyright.
All other elements are (c) copyright NationMaster.com 2003-5. All Rights Reserved.
Usage implies agreement with terms, 1022, m