Citation network
United States Vs. Hays
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 19, 1995
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
-
U.S. 737 (1995) October Term, 1994 Syllabus United States V. HaysSearch
-
allegedly illegal governmental conduct is insufficient to provide standing, see, e. g., Valley Forge Christian College v. AmericansSearch
-
of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464 , and has applied that rule in the equal protection context, see Allen v. WrightSearch
-
record has revealed none. Assuming, arguendo, that the evidence here is sufficient to state a claim under Shaw v. RenoSearch
-
mean that every voter has standing to challenge Act 1 as a racial classification. The Court's holding in Powers v. OhioSearch
-
Together with No. 94-627, Louisiana et al. v. HaysSearch
-
Landau and Jay P. Lefkowitz. t JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. We held in Shaw v. RenoSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and ordered the legislature to draw up a new plan. See Major v. TreenSearch
-
constitutional claims, and took the VRA claims under advisement. While the case was pending, this Court decided Shaw v. RenoSearch
-
District 4, the District Court decided that Act 42 violated the Constitution, and enjoined its enforcement. See Hays v. LouisianaSearch
-
and concluded, largely for the same reasons that it had invalidated Act 42, that Act 1 was unconstitutional. See Hays v. LouisianaSearch
-
PBS, Inc. v. DallasSearch
-
Lujan v. DefendersSearch
-
see also, e. g., Allen v. WrightSearch
-
Valley Forge Christian College v. AmericansSearch
-
Schlesinger v. ReservistsSearch
-
it is the burden of the 'party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor,' McNutt v. GeneralSearch
-
clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute.' Warth v. SeldinSearch
-
adduced at trial''' to avoid dismissal on standing grounds. Lujan, supra, at 561 (quoting Gladstone, Realtors v. VillageSearch
-
rule against generalized grievances applies with as much force in the equal protection context as in any other. Allen v. WrightSearch
-
U. S., at 755 (quoting Heckler v. MathewsSearch
-
standing to challenge the legislature's action, cf. Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. JacksonvilleSearch
-
is no different from that of a student in a segregated school district, see Brief for Appellees 17 (citing Brown v. BoardSearch
-
Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
so carry the burden of proving their standing, as well as their case on the merits. Appellees' reliance on Powers v. OhioSearch
-
see also Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
challenge. JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring in the judgment. The majority apparently would find standing under Shaw v. RenoSearch
-
see also Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
ante, at 744 (citing Valley Forge Christian College v. AmericansSearch
-
Syllabus United States V. HaysSearch
-
Allen v. WrightSearch
-
Powers v. OhioSearch
-
See Major v. TreenSearch
-
See Hays v. LouisianaSearch
-
McNutt v. GeneralSearch
-
Gladstone, Realtors v. VillageSearch
-
Brown v. BoardSearch
-
Miller v. JohnsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial