This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Regarding whether taxpayer standing should be incorporated in this article, I would argue that it should. The concepts of legislative standing, taxpayer standing, citizen's standing, organizational standing, third party standing, and statutory standing can all and should all be discussed in the same article, due to the fact that nearly every course in constitutional law covers them together, and many court cases discuss the sufficiency of plaintiff's standing under many grounds of standing. I'm not volunteering to write the article, but it makes sense to consolidate them together. 65.184.16.79 14:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this purely a U.S. concept? The article discusses it exclusively as such, and I've never heard of it under any other country's legal system. I don't know what category to place it under.
Postdlf 19:27, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
PROBLEM - The Lujan case is mis-cited. There was no majority opinion by the Court as to redressability. If you look at the opinion, Scalia's Part III-B (redressability) did not receive a majority of votes, as Justice Marshall did not take part in the opinion.
i removed this sentence from the last part of the first paragraph because it was redundant. "To put it simply, the party suing has to have something to lose if the law is left on the books." ( 24.242.221.231 09:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC))
It would seem better to me that articles that contain significant technical information and citations of case law that are tied to one country should be represented in the Wikipedia by individual articles for each country. Kevin ( talk) 14:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The article on Martin_v._Ziherl indicates that the plaintiff didn't challenge standing until appeal, and the appellate court simply ignored the issue because they're not supposed to consider standing arguments that were only made on appeal. This article, however, argues that the defendant does have standing. Which is correct? It's entirely possible that the defendant had standing, but the court didn't say so, and so we'll need a source for something other than the decision in Martin for verifiability for that claim; in the absence of such a source, though, we should probably find a better example than Martin here. -- Geoffrey 11:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to need major editing, especially the US section. It's my understanding that to have standing is to have a Right of Action, and that what this article describes as standing is actually only one meaning of the word. Am I mistaken? If so, we should have citations.
I don't think I'm mistaken; It's simply "The legal right to initiate a lawsuit", per
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm ! Right of Action
I think the best remedy is for this US section of this article to be moved, e.g. to
Constitutional Standing or [[Standing in the US Supreme Court], and a new article take its place, or it should redirect to
Right of Action. Thoughts?
FYI, I got interested because of questions raised when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals punted the Prop 8 case back to the SCOTCA for a ruling on standing (
[1]) --
Elvey (
talk)
23:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This was touched on earlier in the talk page, but this article tends to reflect a US point of view. Fully 2/3 of the article is about the US, not counting the intro, which references the US throughout. We need more perspectives and from different places for this article. -- Cromwellt| talk| contribs 02:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Essentially the same topic Rathfelder ( talk) 21:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I have semi-protected this article for three months due to significant vandalism/insertion of irrelevant conduct by IP-hopping anonymous editors. Neutrality talk 19:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Assuming usable sourcing exists (the question must have come up somewhere), could something to be added to this article or the third-party standing one, about the TX abortion law that allows uninvolved parties to sue anyone involved in an abortion procedure? This is not about the surrounding political controversy about abortion, but only about how the usual concept of standing is bypassed. Here is a newspaper article [2] quoting some lawyers calling the statute a radical expansion of standing, but it is probably better to have (e.g.) some viewpoints from law journals. I don't have anywhere near enough legal knowledge to figure out how to write about this. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:D4A ( talk) 19:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Regarding whether taxpayer standing should be incorporated in this article, I would argue that it should. The concepts of legislative standing, taxpayer standing, citizen's standing, organizational standing, third party standing, and statutory standing can all and should all be discussed in the same article, due to the fact that nearly every course in constitutional law covers them together, and many court cases discuss the sufficiency of plaintiff's standing under many grounds of standing. I'm not volunteering to write the article, but it makes sense to consolidate them together. 65.184.16.79 14:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this purely a U.S. concept? The article discusses it exclusively as such, and I've never heard of it under any other country's legal system. I don't know what category to place it under.
Postdlf 19:27, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
PROBLEM - The Lujan case is mis-cited. There was no majority opinion by the Court as to redressability. If you look at the opinion, Scalia's Part III-B (redressability) did not receive a majority of votes, as Justice Marshall did not take part in the opinion.
i removed this sentence from the last part of the first paragraph because it was redundant. "To put it simply, the party suing has to have something to lose if the law is left on the books." ( 24.242.221.231 09:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC))
It would seem better to me that articles that contain significant technical information and citations of case law that are tied to one country should be represented in the Wikipedia by individual articles for each country. Kevin ( talk) 14:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The article on Martin_v._Ziherl indicates that the plaintiff didn't challenge standing until appeal, and the appellate court simply ignored the issue because they're not supposed to consider standing arguments that were only made on appeal. This article, however, argues that the defendant does have standing. Which is correct? It's entirely possible that the defendant had standing, but the court didn't say so, and so we'll need a source for something other than the decision in Martin for verifiability for that claim; in the absence of such a source, though, we should probably find a better example than Martin here. -- Geoffrey 11:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to need major editing, especially the US section. It's my understanding that to have standing is to have a Right of Action, and that what this article describes as standing is actually only one meaning of the word. Am I mistaken? If so, we should have citations.
I don't think I'm mistaken; It's simply "The legal right to initiate a lawsuit", per
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm ! Right of Action
I think the best remedy is for this US section of this article to be moved, e.g. to
Constitutional Standing or [[Standing in the US Supreme Court], and a new article take its place, or it should redirect to
Right of Action. Thoughts?
FYI, I got interested because of questions raised when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals punted the Prop 8 case back to the SCOTCA for a ruling on standing (
[1]) --
Elvey (
talk)
23:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This was touched on earlier in the talk page, but this article tends to reflect a US point of view. Fully 2/3 of the article is about the US, not counting the intro, which references the US throughout. We need more perspectives and from different places for this article. -- Cromwellt| talk| contribs 02:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Essentially the same topic Rathfelder ( talk) 21:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I have semi-protected this article for three months due to significant vandalism/insertion of irrelevant conduct by IP-hopping anonymous editors. Neutrality talk 19:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Assuming usable sourcing exists (the question must have come up somewhere), could something to be added to this article or the third-party standing one, about the TX abortion law that allows uninvolved parties to sue anyone involved in an abortion procedure? This is not about the surrounding political controversy about abortion, but only about how the usual concept of standing is bypassed. Here is a newspaper article [2] quoting some lawyers calling the statute a radical expansion of standing, but it is probably better to have (e.g.) some viewpoints from law journals. I don't have anywhere near enough legal knowledge to figure out how to write about this. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:D4A ( talk) 19:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)