Citation network
Lance Vs. Coffman
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 05, 2007
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
-
Per Curiam Lance V. CoffmanSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States Keith Lance Et Al. V. MikeSearch
-
after the 2000 census to accommodate an additional Representative, a state court did it for them. See Beauprez v. AvalosSearch
-
and that the court-drawn plan must remain in effect until the next decennial census. People ex rel. Salazar v. DavidsonSearch
-
the suit in light of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, but we vacated and remanded for further proceedings. Lance v. DennisSearch
-
the District Court held that the citizen-plaintiffs had standing to bring their Elections Clause challenge. Lance v. DennisSearch
-
again. Federal courts must determine that they have jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits. Steel Co. v. CitizensSearch
-
a plaintiff to demonstrate the now-familiar elements of injury in fact, causation, and redressability. See Lujan v. DefendersSearch
-
See also DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. CunoSearch
-
omitted)). Our refusal to serve as a forum for generalized grievances has a lengthy pedigree. In Fairchild v. HughesSearch
-
Ibid. See also Frothingham v. MellonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
decided with Massachusetts v. MellonSearch
-
Cf. Tyler v. JudgesSearch
-
A pair of more recent cases further illustrates the point. In United States v. RichardsonSearch
-
The power recognized in Marbury v. MadisonSearch
-
The same day, in Schlesinger v. ReservistsSearch
-
Lance v. DavidsonSearch
-
the sorts of injuries alleged by plaintiffs in voting rights cases where we have found standing. See, e.g., Baker v. CarrSearch
-
of the State rather than private citizens acting on their own behalf, as is the case here. See State ex rel. Smiley v. HolmSearch
-
d sub nom. Smiley v. HolmSearch
-
Davis v. HildebrantSearch
-
s subject-matter jurisdiction, Exxon Mobil Corp. v. SaudiSearch
-
Ruhrgas AG v. MarathonSearch
-
See Beauprez v. AvalosSearch
-
Salazar v. DavidsonSearch
-
Steel Co. v. CitizensSearch
-
See Lujan v. DefendersSearch
-
In Fairchild v. HughesSearch
-
Frothingham v. MellonSearch
-
Massachusetts v. MellonSearch
-
In United States v. RichardsonSearch
-
Schlesinger v. ReservistsSearch
-
Baker v. CarrSearch
-
Davis v. HildebrantSearch
-
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. SaudiSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial