How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask Lane Your Own Question

Category: Homework
Satisfied Customers: 9740
Experience:  JD, MBA, CFP & Chartered Retirement Plans Specialist
Type Your Homework Question Here...
Lane is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Regarding "jurisdiction" define and discuss what it means to

This answer was rated:

Regarding "jurisdiction" define and discuss what it means to have parties have the standing to bring an appeal. Be specific and provide case examples. Must be 250+ words and need reference to what website the information came from.
For a plaintiff to have standing, the party must have an actual (not necessarily physical)injury. And that it must be a injury, or to use another word, damages, that the court can resolve.

Causality is also a requirement. Not only must the entity bringing action show harm done or imminent, they must also show a sufficient connection to the action or statute being challenged.

Another way illustrating this is that the plaintiff (party bringing suit or appeal) must have something to lose. In U.S. constitutionality cases, for example, it could be lost revenue by a drug company that a state has declared must not be sold in it's state.


The legally predictable stake or interest that an individual has in a dispute that entitles him to bring the controversy before the court to obtain judicial relief.

Black's Law Dictionary says that standing is a party's right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or a right. Further, to have FEDERAL STANDING, a plaintiff must show that (1)the conduct has caused ACTUAL INJURY and that (2) the interest sought to be protected is within the ZONE OF INTERESTS meant to be regulated by the STATUTORY or CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE in question.

Many times the words PERSONAL STAKE are used: From Baker v Carr 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962) ... "Have the appellants alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions? This is the gist of the question of standing" ... (Brennan, J.)

Customer: replied 4 years ago.
May I ask a dumb question? I am taking OSHA Law, would this answer go with that question with OSHA Law? Sorry, I don't understand the answer
Yes, standing is standing.

Give me a minute and I'll see if I can see anything specific (statute or case wise) regarding standing and OSHA ... but stand, its simplest definition (and I thing probably universal definition)means that people can't bring action (sue) or join into an action unless they will be directly affected be the outcome of that action.

hang on ... BRB

You might want to look at Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978)

This wasn't really about standing, it was about whether OSHA unannounced inspections were an unconstitutional violation of the fourth amendment.

The Supreme Court held that the rule that warrantless searches are generally unreasonable applies to commercial premises just as they are to homes.

However, this can serve to illustrate a point about standing: A company couldn't bring suit just to see if these searches were unconstitutional, that would be asking the supreme for an advisory opinion.

The company that brought suit because of the incredible fines they were charged as a result of a warrantless search DID have standing.
OK, here we go:

This case shows how everything I've said before applies, but is an example of an OSHA case where the court found that RT Vanderbilt and company DID NOT HAVE STANDING, because they no real STAKE in the case.

You will also hear the words "Case or Controversy" requirement; the court mentions it here. Standing is really a sub-part of the case or controversy requirement (that there has to be an actual adversarial disagreement between the parties.

In this case, the court said that RT Vanderbilt had no standing to intervene in the case against OSHA because they had already already received all the relief to which it is entitled.

They also struck down the idea that the "zone of interest" test (a test for standing) applied.

And most applicable to original question, The petition was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Read this, and I think the dots will begin to connect for you:

Lane and 11 other Homework Specialists are ready to help you

...hope everything's going well with the assignment.

If you need more help, let me know.

Otherwise, I'd really appreciate your accepting my answer and providing a positive rating.

Customer: replied 4 years ago.
Hi, sorry I just saw this. I accepted your answer and gave you an excellent rating. Am I supposed to do anything else?

You need to spend $3 to view this post. Add Funds to your account and buy credits.

Related Homework Questions