Add to ORKGIn Kowalski v. Tesmer, the Supreme Court held that attorneys lack standing to assert the rights of indigent criminal defendants.1t The Court\u27s application of its prudential rules of standing presents great concern, as it leaves thirty years of precedent in doubt. This Note examines the parameters of the Court\u27s prudential standing requirements and the great shift in thirdparty standing after Kowalski.
Lawyers often seek disqualification of the opposing counsel based upon their conflicts of interest a...
From the Introduction In the last Term at the United States Supreme Court [2022], standing was the c...
This article examines a paradox found in public law cases. While justiciability doctrines aim to pro...
In Kowalski v. Tesmer, the Supreme Court held that attorneys lack standing to assert the rights of i...
When can a litigant assert someone else’s rights in federal court? The courts currently purport to a...
No jurisdictional principle is more fundamental to the federal judiciary than the doctrine of standi...
Third-party standing is relevant to a wide range of constitutional and statutory cases. The Supreme ...
The author examines the development and current status of third-party standing in the federal courts...
The Supreme Court insists that Article III of the Constitution requires a litigant to have standing ...
Through Lujan and Lexmark, Justice Scalia constructed one of his greatest legacies: a sound and mana...
In the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, In...
Prudential standing, it seems, is the latest target in the Roberts Court\u27s effort to bring some ...
The Supreme Court has clearly treated the Constitution’s Article III standing requirements as mandat...
Unless the plaintiff has a personal stake in the outcome, Article III of the United States Constitut...
This case note examines the New York Court of Appeals\u27 decision in People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y.2d 47...
Lawyers often seek disqualification of the opposing counsel based upon their conflicts of interest a...
From the Introduction In the last Term at the United States Supreme Court [2022], standing was the c...
This article examines a paradox found in public law cases. While justiciability doctrines aim to pro...
In Kowalski v. Tesmer, the Supreme Court held that attorneys lack standing to assert the rights of i...
When can a litigant assert someone else’s rights in federal court? The courts currently purport to a...
No jurisdictional principle is more fundamental to the federal judiciary than the doctrine of standi...
Third-party standing is relevant to a wide range of constitutional and statutory cases. The Supreme ...
The author examines the development and current status of third-party standing in the federal courts...
The Supreme Court insists that Article III of the Constitution requires a litigant to have standing ...
Through Lujan and Lexmark, Justice Scalia constructed one of his greatest legacies: a sound and mana...
In the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, In...
Prudential standing, it seems, is the latest target in the Roberts Court\u27s effort to bring some ...
The Supreme Court has clearly treated the Constitution’s Article III standing requirements as mandat...
Unless the plaintiff has a personal stake in the outcome, Article III of the United States Constitut...
This case note examines the New York Court of Appeals\u27 decision in People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y.2d 47...
Lawyers often seek disqualification of the opposing counsel based upon their conflicts of interest a...
From the Introduction In the last Term at the United States Supreme Court [2022], standing was the c...
This article examines a paradox found in public law cases. While justiciability doctrines aim to pro...