Difference between revisions of "Hayburn's Case"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
FernoKlump (talk | contribs) m |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→top: clean up & uniformity) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Later the Court affirmed that those two words confine "the business of federal courts to questions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process." Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1968). | Later the Court affirmed that those two words confine "the business of federal courts to questions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process." Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1968). | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] |
Latest revision as of 13:50, July 13, 2016
In Hayburn's Case, 2 U.S. 409, 2 Dall. 409, 1 L. Ed. 436 (1792), the U.S. Supreme Court held that it lacked power to issue an advisory opinion, because federal-court jurisdiction was limited by Article III of the U.S. Constitution to actual "Cases" and "Controversies."
Later the Court affirmed that those two words confine "the business of federal courts to questions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process." Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1968).