28 Cited authorities

  1. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

    504 U.S. 555 (1992)   Cited 21,997 times   122 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a sufficient specification of when the injury in fact will occur is necessary
  2. Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env't

    523 U.S. 83 (1998)   Cited 8,427 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that judicial power extends to "cases and controversies of the sort traditionally amenable to, and resolved by, the judicial process"
  3. Warth v. Seldin

    422 U.S. 490 (1975)   Cited 10,206 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 6,071 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 4,274 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs failed to establish traceability because "it is entirely speculative ... whether withdrawal of a tax exemption from any particular school would lead the school to change its policies"—that is, whether the tax exemption is the but-for cause of plaintiffs’ injuries
  6. Raines v. Byrd

    521 U.S. 811 (1997)   Cited 1,365 times   8 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 4,899 times   10 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 1,057 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 473 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 234 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 269,826 times   783 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 5 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 16-3502 - 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

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

    D.C. Code § 16-3503   Cited 1 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