37 Cited authorities

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (1992) Cited 27,840 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"
Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env't
523 U.S. 83 (1998) Cited 10,740 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court "act ultra vires" when it assumes "hypothetical jurisdiction" in order to rule on the merits
Papasan v. Allain
478 U.S. 265 (1986) Cited 16,683 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that Ex parte Young would not support a suit against a state for ongoing liability for an alleged past breach of trust, since "continuing payment of the income from the lost corpus is essentially equivalent in economic terms to a one-time restoration of the lost corpus itself"
Valley Forge College v. Americans United
454 U.S. 464 (1982) Cited 4,970 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"
Hall v. Bellmon
935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) Cited 16,903 times
Holding for pro se litigants that "conclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be based"
Raines v. Byrd
521 U.S. 811 (1997) Cited 1,766 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding specifically and only that "individual members of Congress [lack] Article III standing"
Briscoe v. LaHue
460 U.S. 325 (1983) Cited 2,551 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that absolute immunity applies to claims of perjured testimony
Baker v. Carr
369 U.S. 186 (1962) Cited 5,229 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge Tennessee's apportionment of state representatives when that apportionment "effect[ed] a gross disproportion of representation to voting population"
Flast v. Cohen
392 U.S. 83 (1968) Cited 3,136 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that taxpayers have an adequate stake in the outcome of Establishment Clause litigation to satisfy Article III standing requirements, after stating that "[o]ur history vividly illustrates that one of the specific evils feared by those who drafted the Establishment Clause and fought for its adoption was that the taxing and spending power would be used to favor one religion over another or to support religion in general"
New York v. United States
505 U.S. 144 (1992) Cited 991 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that the federal government could not commandeer States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory scheme

Kerr et al v. Hickenlooper

37 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 court "act ultra vires" when it assumes "hypothetical jurisdiction" in order to rule on the merits

Holding that Ex parte Young would not support a suit against a state for ongoing liability for an alleged past breach of trust, since "continuing payment of the income from the lost corpus is essentially equivalent in economic terms to a one-time restoration of the lost corpus itself"

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 for pro se litigants that "conclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be based"

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

Holding that absolute immunity applies to claims of perjured testimony

Holding that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge Tennessee's apportionment of state representatives when that apportionment "effect[ed] a gross disproportion of representation to voting population"

Holding that the federal government could not commandeer States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory scheme