Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Bennett Vs. Spear

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 19, 1997

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 5 linked 53 unlinked
Show
  1. Warth Vs. Seldin US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1975
  2. Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. Vs. Epstein US Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1996
  3. Barlow Vs. Collins US Supreme Court · Mar 03, 1970
  4. Dennis Vs. Higgins US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1991
  5. Ponte Vs. Real US Supreme Court · May 20, 1985
  6. U.S. 154 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Bennett Et Al. V. Spear
    Search
  7. ESA's citizen-suit provision. The test is a prudential standing requirement of general application, see, e. g., Allen v. Wright
    Search
  8. See Trafficante v. Metropolitan
    Search
  9. the statutory provision whose violation forms the basis for the complaint, see Lujan v. National
    Search
  10. purposes. It marks the consummation of the agency's decisionmaking process, Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman
    Search
  11. Port of Boston Marine Terminal Assn. v. Rederiaktiebolaget
    Search
  12. authorizing it to take the endangered species if (but only if) it complies with the prescribed conditions. Franklin v. Massachusetts
    Search
  13. U. S. 788 , and Dalton v. Specter
    Search
  14. of Montana, Don Stenberg of Nebraska, Betty D. Montgomery of Ohio, Jan Graham of Utah, and Darrell V. McGraw
    Search
  15. Id., at 28. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Bennett v. Plenert
    Search
  16. U. S. 490 , 498 (1975) (citing Barrows v. Jackson
    Search
  17. to the actions of the defendant, and that the injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders
    Search
  18. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans
    Search
  19. Allen v. Wright
    Search
  20. formulation was first employed in Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp
    Search
  21. Data Processing, supra, at 153. Data Processing, and its companion case, Barlow v. Collins
    Search
  22. APA, but later cases have applied it also in suits not involving review of federal administrative action, see Dennis v. Higgins
    Search
  23. Boston Stock Exchange v. State
    Search
  24. of the AP A may not do so for other purposes, Clarke v. Securities
    Search
  25. against the background of our prudential standing doctrine, which applies unless it is expressly negated. See Block v. Community
    Search
  26. Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340, 345-348 (1984). Cf. Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Carpenters
    Search
  27. these factors, we think the conclusion of expanded standing follows a fortiori from our decision in Trafficante v. Metropolitan
    Search
  28. below. A respondent is entitled, however, to defend the judgment on any ground supported by the record, see Ponte v. Real
    Search
  29. Defenders of Wildlife, supra, at 561 (quoting Lujan v. National
    Search
  30. Defenders of Wildlife, supra, at 560-561 (emphasis added) (quoting Simon v. Eastern
    Search
  31. see also Babbitt v. Sweet
    Search
  32. of the ultimate decision does not confer discretion to ignore the required procedures of decisionmaking. See SEC v. Chenery
    Search
  33. United States v. Menasche
    Search
  34. U. S. 528 , 538 (1955) (quoting NLRB v. Jones
    Search
  35. Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 30 (1937), and Montclair v. Ramsdell
    Search
  36. U. S., at 883 (emphasis added). See also Air Courier Conference v. Postal
    Search
  37. of the agency's decisionmaking process, Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman
    Search
  38. In this crucial respect the present case is different from the cases upon which the Government relies, Franklin v. Massachusetts
    Search
  39. U. S. 788 (1992), and Dalton v. Specter
    Search
  40. Syllabus Bennett Et Al. V. Spear
    Search
  41. Lujan v. National
    Search
  42. Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman
    Search
  43. Franklin v. Massachusetts
    Search
  44. and Dalton v. Specter
    Search
  45. Bennett v. Plenert
    Search
  46. Barrows v. Jackson
    Search
  47. Lujan v. Defenders
    Search
  48. Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp
    Search
  49. Clarke v. Securities
    Search
  50. See Block v. Community
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial