- WHERE IS THE INURED PARTY?
- R.C.P. 2
There is one form of action—the civil action.
YOU EITHER HAVE A
CASE OR YOU DON'T.
FACTS + LAW
- STATEMENT OF FACTS
- AFFIDAVITS; SWORN STATEMENTS
SEE FPMLAA CHAPTER 8
SEE FPMLAA CHAPTER 9
SEE FPMLAA CHAPTER 3
- UNLESS, OF COURSE
...NOW WRAP YOUR MIND AROUND THAT...
- This mind map was created 04.08.2013
by Lisa Stinocher O'Hanlon
using XMind software.
The law of standing has its roots in Article III’s
case and controversy requirement.
Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488,
492-93 (2009); Daimler Chrysler Corporation v. Cuno,
547 U.S. 332, 340-41 (2006).
The U.S. Supreme Court has established a three-part test for standing:
The “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing”
requires the plaintiff to establish:.
First ... an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally
protected interest which is
(a) concrete and particularized, and
(b) “actual or imminent,” not “conjectural” or “hypothetical.”
Second, there must be a causal connection between the
injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to
be “fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the
defendant, and not ... th[e] result [of] the independent
action of some third party not before
Third, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely
“speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed
by a favorable decision.”
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992);
see also Summers, 555 U.S. at 493.
- Standing must exist on the date the
complaint is filed and throughout the litigation.
Davis v. Federal Election Commission,
554 U.S. 724, 734 (2008).
- Standing cannot be conferred by agreement and
can be challenged at any time in the litigation,
including on appeal, by the defendants
or, in some circumstances, by the court sua sponte.
Courts of appeal are obliged to examine standing
under all circumstances.
See, e.g., Wyoming Outdoor Council
v. U.S. Forest Service, 165 F.3d 43, 47 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
- Plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for
each claim and each request for relief.
Davis, 554 U.S. at 7 34; City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,
461 U.S. 95, 105 (1983).
- There is no “supplemental” standing:
standing to assert one claim does not
create standing to assert claims arising
from the same nucleus of operative facts.
Daimler Chrysler, 547 U.S. at 353.