Show simple item record Viator, James E. 2011-09-27T19:43:12Z 2011-09-27T19:43:12Z 1987
dc.identifier.citation 18 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 521 en_US
dc.description.abstract The article begins with an explanation of the two jurisdictional elements that comprise supplemental jurisdiction: pendent jurisdiction and ancillary jurisdiction. The article utilizes the Fifth Circuit case, Hefner v. Alexander, to explain how courts determine whether to apply the abstention doctrine. The remainder of the article discusses the concept of standing. The author explains that the traditional view of standing has been “liberalized” by the Warren Court and Burger Court. Standing now only requires there be an injury in fact as opposed to the traditional requirement of a legal injury. The article continues with a discussion of the “three constitutional essentials to the standing doctrine and three court-fashioned prudential considerations.” The article utilizes Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit cases to illustrate these issues. The three constitutional essentials are as follows: (1) injury in fact, (2) cause in fact, and (3) redressability. The article then examines standing issues related to overbreadth and third-party standing through its discussion of the Star Satellite, Inc. v. City of Biloxi Fifth Circuit case. The article also addresses the way standing affects expression cases with a discussion of the “rule of validity” and the “doctrine of separability.”
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Texas Tech Law Review
dc.subject Federal jurisdiction en_US
dc.subject Supplemental jurisdiction
dc.subject Standing
dc.subject Rule of Validity
dc.subject Doctrine of separability
dc.title Federal Jurisdiction en_US
dc.type Article en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record