Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Barlow Vs. Collins

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 03, 1970

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

58 entries 8 linked 50 unlinked
Show
  1. Harmon Vs. Brucker US Supreme Court · Mar 03, 1958
  2. Stark Vs. Wickard US Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1944
  3. Flast Vs. Cohen US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1968
  4. Schilling Vs. Rogers US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1960
  5. Scripps-howard Radio, Inc. Vs. Fcc US Supreme Court · Apr 06, 1942
  6. Abbott Laboratories Vs. Gardner US Supreme Court · May 22, 1967
  7. Poe Vs. Ullman US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1961
  8. U.S. 159 (1970) U.S. Supreme Court Barlow v. Collins
    Search
  9. U.S. 159 (1970) Barlow v. Collins
    Search
  10. Petitioners have standing to maintain this suit. Data Processing Service v. Camp
    Search
  11. Id. at 402. We granted certiorari. 395 U.S. 958. Our decision in Data Processing Service v. Camp
    Search
  12. of the Secretary, but by judicial application of canons of statutory construction. See Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. Shell
    Search
  13. Hardin v. Kentucky
    Search
  14. of judicial review of administrative action adjudicating private rights is not lightly to be inferred. See Leedom v. Kyne
    Search
  15. action is the rule, and nonreviewability an exception which must be demonstrated. In Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
    Search
  16. statute will preclude review, and such a command of the statute may be inferred from its purpose. Switchmen's Union v. National
    Search
  17. that the courts should restrict access to judicial review. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
    Search
  18. notion of any additional requirement when we discussed standing solely in terms of its constitutional content in Flast v. Cohen
    Search
  19. issues which can best be resolved by recognizing and treating them as such. I STANDING Although Flast v. Cohen
    Search
  20. of the basis for standing should resolve that question for all cases. We there confirmed what we said in Baker v. Carr
    Search
  21. Chicago v. Atchison
    Search
  22. of his suit. Baker v. Carr
    Search
  23. U. S. 174 the judiciary of authority to review agency action. Review may be totally foreclosed, as in Schilling v. Rogers
    Search
  24. it may nonetheless be denied to the plaintiff's class. But the governing principle laid down in Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
    Search
  25. Norwalk CORE v. Norwalk
    Search
  26. This opinion applies also to No. 85, Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc., et al. v. Camp
    Search
  27. Cf. the language in Associated Industries v. Ickes
    Search
  28. Other elements of justiciability are, for instance, ripeness, e.g., Poe v. Ullman
    Search
  29. U. S. 629 (1953), and the policy against friendly or collusive suits, e.g., Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman
    Search
  30. United States v. Johnson
    Search
  31. in the sphere of administrative law in the concept of nonreviewability. See, e.g., Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman
    Search
  32. And, of course, federal courts may not decide questions over which they lack jurisdiction, e.g., Brown Shoe Co. v. United
    Search
  33. American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn
    Search
  34. Injury in fact has generally been economic in nature, but it need not be. See, e.g., Scenic Hudson Preservation Conf. v. FPC
    Search
  35. Office of Communication of United Church of Christ v. FCC
    Search
  36. that a person who has suffered injury in fact meets the relevant Article III requirement. See, for example, FCC v. Sanders
    Search
  37. Accordingly, since Congress cannot expand the Article III jurisdiction of federal courts, Muskrat v. United
    Search
  38. E.g., Tennessee Power Co. v. TVA
    Search
  39. Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp
    Search
  40. E.g., Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp
    Search
  41. Harrison-Halsted Community Group, Inc. v. Housing
    Search
  42. U.S. Supreme Court Barlow v. Collins
    Search
  43. Data Processing Service v. Camp
    Search
  44. See Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. Shell
    Search
  45. See Leedom v. Kyne
    Search
  46. In Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
    Search
  47. Switchmen's Union v. National
    Search
  48. I STANDING Although Flast v. Cohen
    Search
  49. Baker v. Carr
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial