Difference between revisions of "Hayburn's Case"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: 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 w...) |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 01:53, September 16, 2007
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).