Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
278 bytes removed ,  21:45, November 22, 2018
rmv duplicate quote; indent source for readability (?)
Line 1: Line 1: −
'''Standing''' is the legal right to bring a lawsuit. Only a person with something actually at stake in a dispute has standing to bring a lawsuit.  In federal court, legal standing is required by Article III, Section 2 of the [[U.S. Constitution]], which requires existence of a real case or controversy rather than a merely hypothetical dispute.  As the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has explained:
+
'''Standing''' is the legal right to bring a lawsuit. Only a person with something actually at stake in a dispute has standing to bring a lawsuit.  In federal court, legal standing is required by Article III, Section 2 of the [[U.S. Constitution]], which requires existence of a real case or controversy rather than a merely hypothetical dispute.   
−
{{cquote|To qualify for standing, a claimant must present an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the defendant's challenged behavior; and likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling.}}
      
The Supreme Court has summarized this rule as follows:
 
The Supreme Court has summarized this rule as follows:
 
{{cquote|To qualify for standing, a claimant must present an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the defendant's challenged behavior; and likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling.}}
 
{{cquote|To qualify for standing, a claimant must present an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the defendant's challenged behavior; and likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling.}}
−
''Davis v. FEC'', 554 U.S. 724, 733 (2008) (citing ''[[Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife]]'', 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)).
+
::''Davis v. FEC'', 554 U.S. 724, 733 (2008) (citing ''[[Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife]]'', 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)).
    
Often it is an association that asserts standing, and the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has explained how [[associational standing]] supplements the constitutional requirement of standing:
 
Often it is an association that asserts standing, and the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has explained how [[associational standing]] supplements the constitutional requirement of standing:
SkipCaptcha
510

edits

Navigation menu