a. no generalized grievances (Flast taxpayer standing exception)
i. can’t have general interest of a citizen that his gov’t behave
C’ally
ii. as long as person in group alleges personal concrete injury,
that is okay (not generalized)
iii. Raines v. Byrd: members of a political body do not have
standing to assert an institutional injury (institutional injury too
generalized to be individualized harm)
b. a logical link btwn P’s status and claim (Flast taxpayer cases
only)
c. no 3P standing
exception:
i. injury in fact
a. concrete and individualized
b. causation (cause in fact of injury)
c. redressability
ii. close relationship: if the party who enjoys the rt is
inextricably bound up w/ 3P’s right
iii. substantial obstacle to asserting the right (or no benefit for
asserting the rt.)
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Judicial Power and are similar to What are the prudential requirements in adequate state in controversy?. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.
What's Your Answer to "What are the prudential requirements in adequate state in controversy?"