Αποτελέσματα Αναζήτησης
19 Φεβ 2015 · The "case or controversy" clause of Article III of the Constitution imposes a minimal constitutional standing requirement on all litigants attempting to bring suit in federal court.
Persons do not have standing to sue in federal court when all they can claim is that they have an interest or have suffered an injury that is shared by all members of the public.
Standing to sue is a. determined by whether or not a court has jurisdiction over the matter. b. determined by whether or not the Supreme Court will hear a case. c. determined by whether or not a person or group has suffered a harm or has been threatened harm as a result of the action that led to the dispute in question.
Standing to sue, in law, the requirement that a person who brings a suit be a proper party to request adjudication of the particular issue involved. The test traditionally applied was whether the party had a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy presented and whether the dispute touched.
In the realm of law, few concepts hold as much significance as Locus Standi, a Latin term translating to ‘place of standing’. This legal principle determines who has the right to bring a case to court, a decision that forms the cornerstone of legal proceedings worldwide.
Standing to challenge governmental action on statutory or other non-constitutional grounds has a constitutional content to the degree that Article III requires a “case” or “controversy,” necessitating a litigant who has sustained or will sustain an injury so that he will be moved to present the issue “in an adversary context and in a ...
Federal courts must necessarily resolve standing inquiries before proceeding to the merits of a lawsuit. See, e.g., Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 732 (2008). In fact, a court may raise the issue of standing sua sponte (i.e., of its own accord) in order to ensure that it has jurisdiction, even if no party to the lawsuit contests standing.
