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...) |
FernoKlump (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | 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." | + | 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). | 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]] | [[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
Revision as of 23:40, May 2, 2008
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).