Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Schlesinger Vs. Reservists Committee

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

61 entries 8 linked 53 unlinked
Show
  1. Flast Vs. Cohen US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1968
    Distinguished
  2. Baker Vs. Carr US Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1962
  3. O'Shea Vs. Littleton US Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1974
  4. United States Vs. Richardson US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1974
  5. Fairchild Vs. Hughes US Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1922
  6. Powell Vs. Mccormack US Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1969
  7. Sierra Club Vs. Morton US Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1972
  8. United States Vs. Scrap US Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1973
  9. Schlesinger v. Reservists
    Search
  10. Committee - 418 U.S. 208 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Schlesinger v. Reservists
    Search
  11. Committee, 418 U.S. 208 (1974) Schlesinger v. Reservists
    Search
  12. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court. We granted certiorari, sub nom. Richardson v. Reservists
    Search
  13. Stop the War v. Laird
    Search
  14. was asserted Page 418 U. S. 213 to rest exclusively with Congress, not the courts, under Powell v. McCormack
    Search
  15. resolution of which by the text of the Constitution was committed to the Congress under Baker v. Carr
    Search
  16. U. S. 83 (1968), and Baker v. Carr
    Search
  17. the meaning of the Incompatibility Clause. Pet. for Cert. 2. Page 418 U. S. 215 II A In Flast v. Cohen
    Search
  18. upon which petitioners in part rely. Each of these doctrines poses a distinct and separate limitation, Powell v. McCormack
    Search
  19. same interest and suffer the same injury shared by all members of the class he represents. Indiana Employment Division v. Burney
    Search
  20. about the conduct of Government as a basis for taxpayer standing. Flast v. Cohen
    Search
  21. now whether a citizen has standing to sue under such a generalized complaint. Our analysis begins with Baker v. Carr
    Search
  22. Id. at 369 U. S. 204 . Although dealing with a case of claimed taxpayer standing, Flast v. Cohen
    Search
  23. Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp
    Search
  24. Page 418 U. S. 219 Sierra Club v. Morton
    Search
  25. Laird v. Tatum
    Search
  26. McCabe v. Atchison
    Search
  27. action will cause that person private competitive injury, Association of Data Processing Service Organization, Inc. v. Camp
    Search
  28. or a complaint that individual enjoyment of certain natural resources has been impaired by such action, United States v. SCRAP
    Search
  29. Doremus v. Board
    Search
  30. if respondents have no standing to sue, no one would have standing is not a reason to find standing. See United States v. Richardson
    Search
  31. respondents have standing to sue as taxpayers raises a different question from whether they may sue as citizens. Flast v. Cohen
    Search
  32. That court thus held in effect that, if no justiciable question is presented, no one has standing. DaCosta v. Laird
    Search
  33. F.2d 1146, 1152 (1973). See also Sierra Club v. Morton
    Search
  34. standing in this Court because of the ambiguous reference in the Court of Appeals' judgment of affirmance to Flast v. Cohen
    Search
  35. in support of its holding, nearly all of which contained language similar to that quoted in the text. See Frothingham v. Mellon
    Search
  36. Tyler v. Judges
    Search
  37. Giles v. Harris
    Search
  38. Cf. Newman v. Frizzell
    Search
  39. cited with approval two of the principal cases relied upon in Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 (1937). Frothingham v. Mellon
    Search
  40. supra, was used for support in O'Shea v. Littleton
    Search
  41. U. S. 488 , 414 U. S. 494 (1974), as was Fairchild v. Hughes
    Search
  42. supra, used in Baker v. Carr
    Search
  43. U.S. at 405 U. S. 739 . Earlier cases of the Court evidenced comparable concern. See, e.g., Newman v. Frizzell
    Search
  44. Lamm v. Volpe
    Search
  45. Pietsch v. President
    Search
  46. Troutman v. Shriver
    Search
  47. U.S. Supreme Court Schlesinger v. Reservists
    Search
  48. Richardson v. Reservists
    Search
  49. Stop the War v. Laird
    Search
  50. and Baker v. Carr
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial