35 Cited authorities

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (1992) Cited 28,052 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"
Califano v. Sanders
430 U.S. 99 (1977) Cited 4,290 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the APA is not to be interpreted as an implied grant of subject-matter jurisdiction to review agency actions"
Texas v. United States
523 U.S. 296 (1998) Cited 1,476 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim that "rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all" is not ripe for adjudication
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
387 U.S. 136 (1967) Cited 5,297 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs subject to a regulation had standing to challenge it even though the Attorney General had yet to "authorize criminal and seizure actions for violations of the statute"
Diamond v. Charles
476 U.S. 54 (1986) Cited 1,153 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that assessment of attorney's fees against a party does not confer standing to pursue the action on appeal
Laird v. Tatum
408 U.S. 1 (1972) Cited 1,396 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that where a defendant's chilling claims stemmed from government surveillance techniques and not a proscriptive regulation, “[a]llegations of a subjective ‘chill’ [were] not an adequate substitute for a claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm”
Martin v. Sargent
780 F.2d 1334 (8th Cir. 1985) Cited 3,774 times
Holding prisoner's claim for equitable and declaratory remedy was moot where prisoner was no longer subject to the challenged conditions
Golden v. Zwickler
394 U.S. 103 (1969) Cited 1,136 times
Holding the plaintiff lacked standing to seek a declaratory judgment that a certain New York statute was unconstitutional because it was "most unlikely" that he would be subject to the statute in the future, which "precluded a finding that there was ‘sufficiently immediacy and reality’ here"
Artway v. Attorney General of State N.J
81 F.3d 1235 (3d Cir. 1996) Cited 524 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the registration provisions of New Jersey's Megan's Law do not constitute punishment
League of United Latin Am. Cit. v. Wilson
131 F.3d 1297 (9th Cir. 1997) Cited 342 times
Holding that the denial of a motion for intervention as of right as untimely is "controlling" of a motion for permissive intervention
Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Cited 490,094 times 693 Legal Analyses
Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation
Section 1997e - Suits by prisoners
42 U.S.C. § 1997e Cited 54,086 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that prisoners must exhaust "available" administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court
Rule 24 - Intervention
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 Cited 9,209 times 35 Legal Analyses
Granting the right of intervention to qualifying persons "unless existing parties adequately represent" them
Section 1997 - Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 1997 Cited 2,454 times 2 Legal Analyses
Requiring exhaustion of "such administrative remedies as are available"

United States America v. County of Los Angeles et al

35 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 "the APA is not to be interpreted as an implied grant of subject-matter jurisdiction to review agency actions"

Holding that a claim that "rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all" is not ripe for adjudication

Holding that plaintiffs subject to a regulation had standing to challenge it even though the Attorney General had yet to "authorize criminal and seizure actions for violations of the statute"

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

Holding that where a defendant's chilling claims stemmed from government surveillance techniques and not a proscriptive regulation, “[a]llegations of a subjective ‘chill’ [were] not an adequate substitute for a claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm”

Holding prisoner's claim for equitable and declaratory remedy was moot where prisoner was no longer subject to the challenged conditions

Holding the plaintiff lacked standing to seek a declaratory judgment that a certain New York statute was unconstitutional because it was "most unlikely" that he would be subject to the statute in the future, which "precluded a finding that there was ‘sufficiently immediacy and reality’ here"

Holding that the registration provisions of New Jersey's Megan's Law do not constitute punishment

Holding that the denial of a motion for intervention as of right as untimely is "controlling" of a motion for permissive intervention

Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

Holding that prisoners must exhaust "available" administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court

Granting the right of intervention to qualifying persons "unless existing parties adequately represent" them

Requiring exhaustion of "such administrative remedies as are available"