Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Richardson

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 25, 1974

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

65 entries 7 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. Flast Vs. Cohen US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1968
    Distinguished
  2. Poe Vs. Ullman US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1961
  3. Sierra Club Vs. Morton US Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1972
  4. Fairchild Vs. Hughes US Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1922
  5. Scripps-howard Radio, Inc. Vs. Fcc US Supreme Court · Apr 06, 1942
  6. Marbury Vs. Madison US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1803
  7. Barlow Vs. Collins US Supreme Court · Mar 03, 1970
  8. U.S. 166 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Richardson
    Search
  9. U.S. 166 (1974) United States v. Richardson
    Search
  10. The District Court's dismissal of the complaint for, inter alia, respondent's lack of standing under Flast v. Cohen
    Search
  11. The District Court granted a motion for dismissal on the ground respondent lacked standing under Flast v. Cohen
    Search
  12. The majority relied chiefly on Flast v. Cohen
    Search
  13. maintain a suit for the relief sought, and we reverse. Page 418 U. S. 171 I As far back as Marbury v. Madison
    Search
  14. any of the limitations of the political question doctrine, not then moot or calling for an advisory opinion. In Baker v. Carr
    Search
  15. except as it is called upon to adjudge the legal rights of litigants in actual controversies.' Liverpool Steamship Co. v. Commissioners
    Search
  16. Recently, in Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp
    Search
  17. Although the recent holding of the Court in Flast v. Cohen
    Search
  18. to prosecute this suit as a taxpayer, that case must be read with reference to its principal predecessor, Frothingham v. Mellon
    Search
  19. Id. at 392 U. S. 99 , citing Baker v. Carr
    Search
  20. injury, in fact, even if it is not directly economic in nature. Association of Data Processing Organizations, Inc. v. Camp
    Search
  21. any particular concrete injury as a result of the operation of this statute. As the Court noted in Sierra Club v. Morton
    Search
  22. Respondent here, like the petitioner in Levitt, also fails to clear the threshold hurdle of Baker v. Carr
    Search
  23. Page 418 U. S. 180 Baker v. Carr
    Search
  24. were nonjusticiable, and, in consequence, no one would have standing. See Gilligan v. Morgan
    Search
  25. Environmental Protection Agency v. Mink
    Search
  26. The Court of Appeals thus appeared to rely on Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp
    Search
  27. insofar as it relies on traditional barriers against federal taxpayer or citizen standing. And I agree that Flast v. Cohen
    Search
  28. with the Court's statement of the bare-minimum constitutional requirements for standing. Drawing upon Baker v. Carr
    Search
  29. by noting the difficulties I see with the other two. And, while I do not disagree at this late date with the Baker v. Carr
    Search
  30. of the liberties and welfare of the people in quite as great a degree as the courts.' Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co. v. May
    Search
  31. The power recognized in Marbury v. Madison
    Search
  32. Frothingham v. Mellon
    Search
  33. Tyler v. Judges
    Search
  34. the federal courts to representatives of the public interest through specific statutory grants of standing. E.g., FCC v. Sanders
    Search
  35. Trafficante v. Metropolitan
    Search
  36. have been reexamined and found sufficient. Compare, e.g., Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp
    Search
  37. U. S. 150 (1970), and Page 418 U. S. 194 Barlow v. Collins
    Search
  38. U. S. 159 (1970), with, e.g., Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. TVA
    Search
  39. U. S. 118 (1939), and Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes
    Search
  40. U. S. 464 (1938). See also Investment Co. Institute v. Camp
    Search
  41. U. S. 45 (1970). Noneconomic interests have been recognized. E.g., Baker v. Carr
    Search
  42. U. S. 727 (1972). A stringently limited exception for federal taxpayer standing has been created. Flast v. Cohen
    Search
  43. supra. The concept of particularized injury has been dramatically diluted. E.g., United States v. SCRAP
    Search
  44. S. 669 (1973). The revolution in standing doctrine that has occurred, particularly in the 12 years since Baker v. Carr
    Search
  45. U.S. at 405 U. S. 738 . Accord, Linda R. S. v. Richard
    Search
  46. has, on occasion, required a reading of the concept that threatens to transform it beyond recognition. E.g., Baker v. Carr
    Search
  47. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Richardson
    Search
  48. In Baker v. Carr
    Search
  49. Liverpool Steamship Co. v. Commissioners
    Search
  50. Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial