49 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"
Lewis v. Casey
518 U.S. 343 (1996) Cited 14,273 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a prisoner must show an actual injury to state a claim for denial of access to courts
Warth v. Seldin
422 U.S. 490 (1975) Cited 11,856 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that Article III requires plaintiffs "to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions"
Allen v. Wright
468 U.S. 737 (1984) Cited 4,753 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that, even when plaintiffs allege "one of the most serious injuries recognized in our legal system," it's not justiciable where "the chain of causation between the challenged Government conduct and the asserted injury are far too weak for the chain as a whole to sustain respondents' standing"
Valley Forge College v. Americans United
454 U.S. 464 (1982) Cited 4,969 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees ... is not an injury sufficient to confer standing under Art. III, even though the disagreement is phrased in constitutional terms"
Whitmore v. Arkansas
495 U.S. 149 (1990) Cited 2,850 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that a third party does not have "standing to challenge the validity of a death sentence imposed on a capital defendant who has elected to forgo his right of appeal"
Raines v. Byrd
521 U.S. 811 (1997) Cited 1,762 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding specifically and only that "individual members of Congress [lack] Article III standing"
Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org.
426 U.S. 26 (1976) Cited 3,184 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiffs who sued IRS lacked standing where they hoped reversal of IRS rule would " ‘discourage’ hospitals from denying their services to" plaintiffs, but whether hospitals had denied services based on the existing rule remained unclear and, even if the rule were reversed, hospitals would remain free to not provide services to plaintiffs
Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.
500 U.S. 90 (1991) Cited 1,204 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that while Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 establishes procedural requirements concerning the "adequacy of the shareholder representative's pleadings," state law governs the substance of the demand requirement
Diamond v. Charles
476 U.S. 54 (1986) Cited 1,141 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that assessment of attorney's fees against a party does not confer standing to pursue the action on appeal
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,896 times 1234 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"
Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 Cited 9,234 times 24 Legal Analyses
Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."
Section 80a-1 - Findings and declaration of policy
15 U.S.C. § 80a-1 Cited 465 times 16 Legal Analyses
Declaring as a policy rationale for the Investment Company Act the prevention of conflicts of interest between investment companies and advisers
Section 80a-35 - Breach of fiduciary duty
15 U.S.C. § 80a-35 Cited 310 times 6 Legal Analyses
Imposing a “fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation for services, or of payments of a material nature ”

Forsythe v. Sun Life Financial Inc. et al

49 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 a prisoner must show an actual injury to state a claim for denial of access to courts

Holding that Article III requires plaintiffs "to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions"

Holding that "the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees ... is not an injury sufficient to confer standing under Art. III, even though the disagreement is phrased in constitutional terms"

Holding that a third party does not have "standing to challenge the validity of a death sentence imposed on a capital defendant who has elected to forgo his right of appeal"

Holding specifically and only that "individual members of Congress [lack] Article III standing"

Holding that while Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 establishes procedural requirements concerning the "adequacy of the shareholder representative's pleadings," state law governs the substance of the demand requirement

Holding that assessment of attorney's fees against a party does not confer standing to pursue the action on appeal

Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."

Declaring as a policy rationale for the Investment Company Act the prevention of conflicts of interest between investment companies and advisers

Imposing a “fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation for services, or of payments of a material nature ”