Citation network
Kowalski Vs. Tesmer
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 13, 2004
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2004 Kowalski V. TesmerSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States Kowalski, Judge, 26th Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan, Et Al. V. TesmerSearch
-
Court held the practice and statute unconstitutional, but a Sixth Circuit panel reversed, holding that Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
s ability to protect his own interests. Powers v. OhioSearch
-
Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 491 U. S. 617 , and Department of Labor v. TriplettSearch
-
rights, not those of the hypothetical clients asserted here. And Department of Labor v. TriplettSearch
-
concurring opinion. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens and Souter, JJ., joined. Kowalski v. TesmerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Opinion of the Court Kowalski V. TesmerSearch
-
States No. 03-407 John F. Kowalski, Judge, 26TH Judicial Cir- Cuit Court of Michigan, Et Al., Peti- Tioners V. JohnSearch
-
was to take effect, the District Court issued an order holding the practice and statute unconstitutional. Tesmer v. GranholmSearch
-
who pleaded guilty. 114 F. Supp. 2d 622 (2000). A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Tesmer v. GranholmSearch
-
F. 3d 536 (2002). The panel held that Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
It then held that the statute was constitutional. The Court of Appeals granted rehearing en banc and reversed. Tesmer v. GranholmSearch
-
s case-or-controversy requirement. See Lujan v. DefendersSearch
-
address the alternative threshold question whether they have standing to raise the rights of others. See Ruhrgas AG v. MarathonSearch
-
Secretary of State of Md. v. JosephSearch
-
relationship with the person who possesses the right. Powers v. OhioSearch
-
supra , at 510 (emphasis added) (citing Doe v. BoltonSearch
-
see Craig v. BorenSearch
-
we have not looked favorably upon third-party standing. See, e.g. , Conn v. GabbertSearch
-
an attorney-client relationship as sufficient to confer third-party standing. See Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. UnitedSearch
-
Department of Labor v. TriplettSearch
-
U. S. 715 (1990). In Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. UnitedSearch
-
quite distinct from the hypothetical attorney-client relationship posited here. In Department of Labor v. TriplettSearch
-
advancing their own constitutional rights against the Michigan scheme. Powers v. OhioSearch
-
constitutional claim. That hypothesis, however, was disproved in the Michigan courts, see, e.g., People v. JacksonSearch
-
People v. WilkinsSearch
-
Mich. 949, 620 N. W. 2d 528 (2001) (same), and this Court, see Pet. for Cert. in Halbert v. MichiganSearch
-
rights. See Powers v. OhioSearch
-
Ruhrgas AG v. MarathonSearch
-
Oil Co. , 526 U. S., at 586. The doctrine of Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
a favorable decision will provide redress. Lujan v. DefendersSearch
-
relief aimed at the system. Again, we assume, without deciding, that these allegations are sufficient. See Ruhrgas AG v. MarathonSearch
-
forum-shopping of this kind is not a basis for third-party standing. See, e.g. , Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. UnitedSearch
-
is telling. By the time the Michigan Supreme Court had a chance to rule on even the prestatutory practice, see People v. BulgerSearch
-
District Court had ruled the prestatutory practice and the impending statute itself unconstitutional. Tesmer v. GranholmSearch
-
by asserting the rights of some hypothetical claimant (or claimants). Ibid . And so on. Kowalski v. TesmerSearch
-
for instance, that beer vendors have standing to raise the rights of their prospective young male customers, see Craig v. BorenSearch
-
that criminal defendants have standing to raise the rights of jurors excluded from service, see Powers v. OhioSearch
-
Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
Powers v. OhioSearch
-
and Department of Labor v. TriplettSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial