Uncontested Adjudication and Standing to Sue

James E. Pfander
{"title":"Uncontested Adjudication and Standing to Sue","authors":"James E. Pfander","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197571408.003.0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter shows that modern standing doctrine cannot be defended by reference to the history and meaning of the text of Article III. Cases, as understood in antebellum America, did not require the plaintiff to seek redress for an injury in fact inflicted by an adverse party. Instead, the term was broad enough to encompass uncontested adjudication by those asserting a claim of right in an ex parte application. The chapter invites the U.S. Supreme Court to reformulate its rule to require only a “litigable interest,” a claim of right in the form prescribed by law. Such a formulation can accommodate some aspects of the Court’s modern doctrine and the tradition of uncontested adjudication.","PeriodicalId":394146,"journal":{"name":"Cases Without Controversies","volume":"86 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cases Without Controversies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197571408.003.0011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter shows that modern standing doctrine cannot be defended by reference to the history and meaning of the text of Article III. Cases, as understood in antebellum America, did not require the plaintiff to seek redress for an injury in fact inflicted by an adverse party. Instead, the term was broad enough to encompass uncontested adjudication by those asserting a claim of right in an ex parte application. The chapter invites the U.S. Supreme Court to reformulate its rule to require only a “litigable interest,” a claim of right in the form prescribed by law. Such a formulation can accommodate some aspects of the Court’s modern doctrine and the tradition of uncontested adjudication.
无争议裁决和起诉资格
本章表明,现代常设学说不能通过参考第三条文本的历史和意义来捍卫。在南北战争前的美国,案件并不要求原告为事实上由对方造成的损害寻求赔偿。相反,这个术语足够广泛,可以包括那些在单方面申请中主张权利要求的人的无争议裁决。本章邀请美国最高法院重新制定其规则,只要求“可诉讼利益”,即以法律规定的形式提出权利要求。这种提法可以适应法院现代原则和无争议裁决传统的某些方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信