§Why CasetextPricing

SIBLEY v. OBAMA

MOTION to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto

28 Cited authorities

  1. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

    504 U.S. 555 (1992)   Cited 27,751 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"

  2. Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env't

    523 U.S. 83 (1998)   Cited 10,696 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court "act ultra vires" when it assumes "hypothetical jurisdiction" in order to rule on the merits

  3. Warth v. Seldin

    422 U.S. 490 (1975)   Cited 11,841 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"

  4. Los Angeles v. Lyons

    461 U.S. 95 (1983)   Cited 7,494 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding there is no justiciable controversy where plaintiff had once been subjected to a chokehold

  5. Allen v. Wright

    468 U.S. 737 (1984)   Cited 4,750 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"

  6. Raines v. Byrd

    521 U.S. 811 (1997)   Cited 1,759 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding specifically and only that "individual members of Congress [lack] Article III standing"

  7. Baker v. Carr

    369 U.S. 186 (1962)   Cited 5,223 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"

  8. Schlesinger v. Reservists to Stop the War

    418 U.S. 208 (1974)   Cited 1,135 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance" cannot confer standing

  9. Renne v. Geary

    501 U.S. 312 (1991)   Cited 528 times
    Holding that respondents have "failed to demonstrate a live dispute involving the actual or threatened application of [state statute] to bar particular speech"

  10. Nixon v. United States

    506 U.S. 224 (1993)   Cited 266 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding nonjusticiable the Senate's impeachment procedures in light of Article I's commitment to the Senate of the " ‘sole Power to try all Impeachments' "

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 344,855 times   920 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Section 16-3501 - Persons against whom issued; civil action

    D.C. Code § 16-3501   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action. D.C. Code § 16-3501 Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 602, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 562, Pub. L. 91-358

  13. Section 16-3503 - Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure

    D.C. Code § 16-3503   Cited 4 times

    If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition

  14. Section 16-3502 - Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings

    D.C. Code § 16-3502   Cited 1 times

    The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application, or until the relator files a bond with sufficient surety, to be approved by the clerk of the court, in such penalty as