25 Cited authorities

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (1992) Cited 27,807 times 138 Legal Analyses
Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"
Summers v. Earth Island Inst.
555 U.S. 488 (2009) Cited 2,997 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that supplementation of the district court record to receive affidavits from the organization's members was not permitted "in the circumstances here: after the trial is over, judgment has been entered, and a notice of appeal has been filed"
Powers v. Ohio
499 U.S. 400 (1991) Cited 2,547 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a white defendant has standing to challenge strikes of black jurors
Tennessee v. Lane
541 U.S. 509 (2004) Cited 1,363 times
Holding that in providing prophylactic relief in the context of a "fundamental right of access to [state] courts," Title II of the ADA "constitutes a valid exercise of Congress's § 5 authority to enforce the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment" and abrogates the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity
Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co.
339 U.S. 306 (1950) Cited 10,300 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that due process requires a hearing "appropriate to the nature of the case"
United States v. Windsor
570 U.S. 744 (2013) Cited 674 times 92 Legal Analyses
Holding unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment a federal law recognizing opposite-sex-sex but not same-sex marriages because its "principal purpose [was] to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency"
Lance v. Coffman
549 U.S. 437 (2007) Cited 573 times
Holding that plaintiffs lacked standing because “[t]he only injury [they] allege is that the law ... has not been followed”
Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant # 1
537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2008) Cited 2,186 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the plaintiff's interest in anonymity must be balanced against both the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendant"
Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc.
551 U.S. 587 (2007) Cited 459 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiffs do not have standing to assert “their claim ... that, having paid lawfully collected taxes into the Federal Treasury at some point, they have a continuing, legally cognizable interest in ensuring that those funds are not used by the Government in a way that violates the Constitution”
Commercial Space Management Co. v. Boeing Co.
193 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 713 times
Finding that it is "beyond debate that a dismissal under Rule 41 is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can't complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it"
Section 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
18 U.S.C. § 1030 Cited 3,226 times 408 Legal Analyses
Holding cellular phones are protected

Delta Pilots Association v. Doe

25 Cited authorities

Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

Holding that supplementation of the district court record to receive affidavits from the organization's members was not permitted "in the circumstances here: after the trial is over, judgment has been entered, and a notice of appeal has been filed"

Holding that a white defendant has standing to challenge strikes of black jurors

Holding that due process requires a hearing "appropriate to the nature of the case"

Holding unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment a federal law recognizing opposite-sex-sex but not same-sex marriages because its "principal purpose [was] to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency"

Holding that plaintiffs lacked standing because “[t]he only injury [they] allege is that the law ... has not been followed”

Holding that "the plaintiff's interest in anonymity must be balanced against both the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendant"

Finding that it is "beyond debate that a dismissal under Rule 41 is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can't complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it"

Holding cellular phones are protected