Wendy's ConLaw Outline Fall - Purvis

Wendy's ConLaw Outline Fall - Purvis - WENDYS CONLAW...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
WENDY’S CONLAW OUTLINE - FALL / PURVIS page 1 of 7 SCotUS applies two sets of rules: Constitution’s “case or controversy” and self-imposed rules to achieve high quality decisions Who is the challenger? Who is the actor? What is the act? CHALLENGER PRIVATE PARTY, CIVIL CLAIM, FEDERAL COURT TRIGGER: π is litigating a civil matter in Federal Court. (Δs don’t have standing issues.) JUSTICIABILITY S TANDING - Constitutionally required before proceeding with civil litigation in FEDERAL court; State courts have their own standing rules. ISSUE: Does the π have standing to sue in FedCt and not violate the General Grievance Doctrine? Primary Party’s Standing Private π in a Civil suit in Federal Court must show Personally suffered an actual or imminent injury caused by Δ’s act in violation of the Constitution ( NOT A GENERALIZED GRIEVANCE ) Redressable by the relief sought Third Party’s Standing - as π does not have the greatest stake in the outcome if asserting rights of 3d party, this is generally disallowed; but as this is a self- imposed rule (not in the Constitution), it can be set aside if 3d party has standing and π can show: P rivate π in a civil suit in Federal Court, with actual or imminent injury caused by Δ violating Constitution & redressable by relief sought R elationship between π and 3d party, so π is an effective advocate I mpairment in the 3d party’s ability to protect own interests Special Standing Rules for Associations - Bringing suit, not for injury to itself as an entity, but for the members of the association: P rivate π in a civil suit in Federal Court, with actual or imminent injury caused by Δ violating Constitution, redressable by relief sought M embers have standing as individuals I njury is germane to the purpose of the association Individual participation of the members is not necessary, so there are no damage suits which require a showing of the value of the harm Taxpayer’s Standing Municipal taxes may create standing for TPs if TP can show injury from a spending in violation of the Constitution State taxes never create standing for TPs Federal taxes create standing ONLY IF the challenge is a violation of the Establishment Clause by an expenditure with a: Sufficient nexus between TP status asserted and the challenged Federal act (expenditure) Sufficient nexus between Federal act (expenditure) and the Constitutional limit on that spending power Statutorily-Created Standing Congress created standing by statute Generalized Grievance Doctrine Generalized Grievance Doctrine requires that the injury: Is not widely shared among millions (the more people injured, the less the chance of standing) Is “specific” and “concrete”; as opposed to “general” and “abstract, which precludes standing CONC: I conclude π does (not) have standing because … CONC: I conclude π does (not) violate the GGD because … C LAIM Ripeness
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 10/24/2010 for the course PR 123 taught by Professor Gramer during the Spring '06 term at Loyola Law School Los Angeles.

Page1 / 7

Wendy's ConLaw Outline Fall - Purvis - WENDYS CONLAW...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online