green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
20.4 score
“o invoke the judicial power . . . must show that he . . . is immediately in danger of . . . a direct injury . . . and it is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public.”
Treatment trajectory · 1938 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1938
1982
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jonathan Corbett v. TSA
o invoke the judicial power . . . must show that he . . . is immediately in danger of . . . a direct injury . . . and it is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Baca v. Colo. Dep't of State
tanding is assessed as of the time of filing of the complaint.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stacia Hall v. District of Columbia Board of Elections
Id. (quoting Levitt, 302 U.S. at 634).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
KAETZ v. THE UNITED STATES
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
I, § 6, cl. 2, as “[i]t is an established principle that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained, or is immediately in danger of sustaining, a direct injury as the result of that action and it is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public”); United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 , 176–77 (1974) (quoting Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. at 636) (dismissing taxpayer suit challenging government’s failure to disclose expenditures o…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gill v. Whitford
And the citizen’s abstract interest in policies adopted by the legislature on the facts here is a nonjusticiable “gen eral interest common to all members of the public.” Ex parte Lévitt, 302 U. S. 633, 634 (1937) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michel v. McConnell
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff did not have standing as a citizen and member of the Supreme Court bar because for “a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained ... a direct injury as the result of that action and [not just] that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public.” Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. at 634, 58 S.Ct. 1 ; accord Lujan, 504 U.S. at 575 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Schwartz Partners Packaging, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
A plaintiff may assert the violation of a procedural right as the basis for standing, but only “so long as the procedures in question are designed to protect some concrete interest of his that is the ultimate basis of his standing.” Lu-jan, 504 U.S. at 573 n. 8, 112 S.Ct. 2130 . “[Djeprivation of a procedural right without some concrete interest that is affected by the deprivation&emdash;a procedural right in vacuo &emdash;is insufficient to create Article III standing.” Summers, 555 U.S. at 496 , 129 S.Ct. 1142 . “[I]n order to show that the interest asserted is more than a mere gen…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
CHIATELLO v. City and County of San Francisco
As previously mentioned, the court in Flast stated “The fundamental aspect of standing is that it focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint before a . . . court and not on the issues he wishes to have adjudicated.” (Id. at p. 99.) However, the court seemingly undercut this formulation by also stating that “in ruling on [taxpayer] standing, it is both appropriate and necessary to look to the substantive issues ... to determine whether there is a logical nexus between the status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated” in order to ascertain whether the plaintiff “is a p…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodearmel v. Clinton
In Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 (1937) (per curiam), a member of the bar of the United States Supreme Court challenged the appointment of Justice Hugo Black to the High Court under the Ineligibility Clause.6 The Court noted that the petitioner had “disclose[d] no interest . . . other than that of a citizen and a member of the bar of this Court” and concluded that his interest was “insufficient” to support jurisdiction. 302 U.S. at 634.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodearmel v. Clinton
In Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 , 58 S.Ct. 1 , 82 L.Ed. 493 (1937) (per curiam), a member of the bar of the United States Supreme Court challenged the appointment of Justice Hugo Black to the High Court under the Ineligibility Clause. 6 The Court noted that the petitioner had “disclose[d] no interest ... other than that of a citizen and a member of the bar of this Court” and concluded that his interest was “insufficient” to support jurisdiction. 302 U.S. at 634, 58 S.Ct. 1 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lane
(2×)
Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U.S. at 633, 58 S.Ct. 1 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Federal Election Commission v. Akins
Brief for Petitioner 28; see also Lujan, 504 U. S., at 573-574 ; Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 755-756 (1984); Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 475-479 (1982); Richardson, supra, at 176-178 ; Frothingham v. Mellon, decided with Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 487 (1923); Ex parte Levitt, 302 U. S. 633, 634 (1937) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
“It is an established principle that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action . .. .” Ex parte Lévitt, 302 U. S. 633, 634 (1937).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Florida Audubon Society v. Lloyd M. Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury, and Margaret Richardson, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
In this type of case, which includes suits demanding preparation of an EIS, see, e.g., Public Citizen v. NHTSA, 848 F.2d 256 , 270 n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1988) (Silberman, J., dissenting) (noting that NEPA "confers a procedural right") (emphasis added), in order to show that the interest asserted is more than a mere "general interest [in the alleged procedural violation] common to all members of the public," Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U.S. at 634, 58 S.Ct. at 1, the plaintiff must show that the government act performed without the procedure in question will cause a distinct risk to a particularized interest …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
I, § 6, cl. 2. *575 "It is an established principle," we said, "that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action and it is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public." 302 U. S., at 634.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McClure v. Carter
In denying the motion for lack of standing, the court said that “[i]t is an established principle that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained or is immediately in *270 danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action and it is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public.” 302 U.S. at 634, 58 S.Ct. at 1.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Western Mining Council v. Watt
Apparently as a prudential matter, 21 the Supreme Court has held that "when the asserted harm is a 'generalized grievance' shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction." Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. at 499 , 95 S.Ct. at 2205 ; citing Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War; United States v. Richardson; Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U.S. at 634, 58 S.Ct. at 1.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Western Mining Council v. Watt
Apparently as a prudential, matter, 21 the Supreme Court has held that “when the asserted harm is a ‘generalized grievance’ shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. at 499 , 95 S.Ct. at 2205 ; citing Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War; United States v. Richardson; Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U.S. at 634,58 S.Ct. at 1.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Julienne Jesse May
It is an established principle that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislation action he must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action and it is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public.” (p. 220, 94 S.Ct. p. 2931, quoting from Ex parte Levitt, 1937, 302 U.S. 633 at 634, 58 S.Ct. 1 , at 1, 82 L.Ed. 493 ) ****** Moreover, when a court is asked to undertake constitutional adjudication, the most important…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Warth v. Seldin
E. g., Schlesinger v. Reservists to Stop the War, supra; United States v. Richardson, supra; Ex parte Levitt, 302 U. S. 633, 634 (1937).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War
(2×)
According to their complaint, respondents are present and former members of the various Armed Forces Reserves. "organized for the purpose of opposing the military involvement of the United States in Vietnam and of using all lawful means to end that involvement, including efforts by its members individually to persuade the Congress of the United States and all members of the Congress to take all steps necessary and appropriate to end that involvement." The specific interest which they thus asserted, and which they alleged had been infringed by violations of the Incompatibility Clause, though do…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Richardson
(5×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
This is surely the kind of a generalized grievance described in both Frothingham and Flast since the impact *177 on him is plainly undifferentiated and "common to all members of the public." Ex parte Lévitt, 302 U. S. 633, 634 (1937); Laird v. Tatum, 408 U. S. 1, 13 (1972).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alfred D. Schiaffo, in No. 72-2168 v. Henry Helstoski, in No. 72-2167
It is an established principle that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action and it is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public. 105 302 U.S. at 634, 58 S.Ct. at 1.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sloan v. Nixon
Co. v. King, 217 U.S. 524, 534 , 30 S.Ct. 594 , 54 L.Ed. 868 ; Newman v. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 549, 550 , 35 S.Ct. 881 , 59 L.Ed. 1446 ; Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 129 , 42 S.Ct. 274, 275 , 66 L.Ed. 499 ; Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 448 , 43 S.Ct. 597, 601 , 67 L.Ed. 1078 .” (302 U.S. at 634, 58 S.Ct. at 1).
discussed
Cited "see"
Comm. to Elect Dan Forest v. Emps. Pol. Action Comm.
See Turner v. City of Reidsville, 224 N.C. 42, 47 (1944) (“It is an established principle that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained, or is in immediate danger of sustaining, a direct injury as the result of that action and it is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public.” (quoting Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 (1937))).
discussed
Cited "see"
Comm. to Elect Dan Forest v. Emps. Pol. Action Comm.
See Turner v. City of Reidsville, 224 N.C. 42, 47 (1944) (“It is an established principle that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained, or is in immediate danger of sustaining, a direct injury as the result of that action and it is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public.” (quoting Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 (1937))).
cited
Cited "see"
Autor v. Blank
See Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 13-14 , 92 S.Ct. 2318 , 33 L.Ed.2d 154 (1972), citing Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 , 634, 58 S.Ct. 1 , 82 L.Ed. 493 (1937).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Rochon
See Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 12-14 , 92 S.Ct. 2318, 2325-26 , 33 L.Ed.2d 154 (1972) (citing Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 , 634, 58 S.Ct. 1 , 82 L.Ed. 493 (1937)).
discussed
Cited "see"
McKenna v. Williams
(2×)
See Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 633-34 , 58 S.Ct. 1 , 82 L.Ed. 493 (1937) (holding petitioner lacked standing to challenge Justice Black’s appointment to the United States Supreme Court because he had no personal interest different from that in common with the public).
discussed
Cited "see"
Parents, Alumni, & Friends of Taylor School v. City of Norfolk
See Defenders, 504 U.S. at 574 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 (quoting Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 , 58 S.Ct. 1 , 82 L.Ed. 493 (1937) (dismissing suit for lack of standing where plaintiff claimed that Justice Blaek-mun’s appointment to the Supreme Court violated Ineligibility Clause) (other citations omitted)).
cited
Cited "see"
Stocker v. Hood
See Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 , 58 S.Ct. 1 , 82 L.Ed. 493 (1937).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lamont v. Schultz
See Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 , 58 S.Ct. 1 , 82 L.Ed. 493 (1937); Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 , 94 S.Ct. 2925 , 41 L.Ed.2d 706 (1974); United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669 , 93 S.Ct. 2405 , 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973).
discussed
Cited "see"
Postscript Enterprises, Inc. v. Westfall
See Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 682 , 97 S.Ct. 2010, 2014 , 52 L.Ed.2d 675 (1977). " '[T]o entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he [or she] must show that he [or she] has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action.' " Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 13 , 92 S.Ct. 2318, 2325 , 33 L.Ed.2d 154 (1972), citing Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 , 634, 58 S.Ct. 1 , 82 L.Ed. 493 (1937). " '[O]ne does not have to await the consummation of threaten…
discussed
Cited "see"
Postscript Enterprises, Inc. v. Westfall
See Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 682 , 97 S.Ct. 2010, 2014 , 52 L.Ed.2d 675 (1977). “ ‘[T]o entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he [or she] must show that he [or she] has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action.’ ” Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 13 , 92 S.Ct. 2318, 2325 , 33 L.Ed.2d 154 (1972), citing Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 , 634, 58 S.Ct. 1 , 82 L.Ed. 493 (1937). “ ‘[0]ne does not have to await the consummation…
discussed
Cited "see"
American Jewish Congress v. Cyrus R. Vance
(2×)
See Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U.S. at 634, 58 S.Ct. 1 . 13 In essence, plaintiffs' allegations of injury to themselves as American Jews is that defendants' actions have a chilling effect on their pursuit of economic opportunities.
cited
Cited "see"
First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Department of Banking
See Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U. S. 633 , *568 58 S. Ct. 1 , 82 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Wolkstein v. Port of New York Authority
See Murphy v. United States, 7 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 389, 394 , citing Ex parte Levitt, 1937, 302 U.S. 633 , 634, 58 S.Ct. 1 , 82 L.Ed. 493 ; also Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 1937, 302 U.S. 464, 478 , 58 S.Ct. 300 , 82 L.Ed. 374 , and Doremus v. Board etc. of Hawthorne, 1952, 342 U.S. 429, 433 , 72 S.Ct. 394 , 96 L.Ed. 475 .
cited
Cited "see"
State ex rel. West v. Gray
See Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 , 58 S.Ct. 1 , 82 L.Ed. 493 ; Com. of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 , 43 S. Ct. 597 , 67 L.Ed. 1078 ; Somlyo v. Schott, supra, 45 So.2d 502 ; State ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see"
State Ex Rel. West v. Gray
See Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 , 58 S.Ct. 1 , 82 L.Ed. 493 ; Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 , 43 S.Ct. 597 , 67 L.Ed. 1078 ; Somlyo v. Schott, supra, 45 So.2d 502 ; State ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Eric Esquire Deters v. Judge Michael Barrett, et al.
Ed. 2d 678 (1974) (holding that claimed injury of government’s failure to disclose expenditures of Central Intelligence Agency was not a particularized injury but rather a “generalized grievance” whose “impact on [plaintiff] is plainly undifferentiated and common to all members of the public” (internal quotations and citations omitted)); see also Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 , 634, 58 S. Ct. 1 , 82 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Eric Esquire Deters v. Judge Michael Barrett, et al.
Ed. 2d 678 (1974) (holding that claimed injury of government’s failure to disclose expenditures of Central Intelligence Agency was not a particularized injury but rather a “generalized grievance” whose “impact on [plaintiff] is plainly undifferentiated and common to all members of the public” (internal quotations and citations omitted)); see also Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 , 634, 58 S. Ct. 1 , 82 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Madrial v. Garland
Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 , 217–21 (1974); see also Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 , 636 (1937).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Schaefer v. United States of America
The 24 question is not whether Plaintiff subjectively seeks to vindicate his personal interests and 25 convictions, but whether he asserts more than “a ‘generalized grievance’ shared in 26 substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens.” Warth v. Seldin, 27 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975); see also Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 , 633 (1937) (“[T]o invoke 28 the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action . . . it is not 1 sufficient that [a plaintiff] has merely a general interest common to all members of the 2 public.” (citation omitted)).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
SHAVER v. REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS
See, e.g., Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 , 636 (1937) (dismissing case asserting that the appointment of Justice Black violated the Ineligibility Clause, Art.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
the Texas Education Agency and Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education, in His Official Capacity v. Academy of Careers and Technologies, Inc. D/B/A Academy of Careers and Technologies Charter School
E.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 , 573–578, 112 S.Ct. 2130 , 2143–2148, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 , 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3324 , 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984); see also infra, at 1029–1030. 21 “It is an established principle that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action....” Ex parte Lévitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 , 58 S.Ct. 1, 1 , 82 L.Ed. 493 (1937).…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hollander v. McCain et al
That harm, "standing alone, would adversely affect only the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance." 418 U.S. at 217 ; see also Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 , 634 (1937) (ruling that citizen lacked standing to challenge appointment of Hugo Black to the Court under the Ineligibility Clause based on his membership in Congress when it enacted a new judicial pension plan).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Branch v. Federal Communications Commission
See, e.g., Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 , 58 S.Ct. 1 , 1, 82 L.Ed. 493 (1937); Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 , 94 S.Ct. 1209, 1216 , 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974); Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 11-13 , 92 S.Ct. 2318, 2324-25 , 33 L.Ed.2d 154 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Branch v. Federal Communications Commission
See, e.g., Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 , 634, 58 S.Ct. 1 , 1, 82 L.Ed. 493 (1937); Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 , 94 S.Ct. 1209, 1216 , 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974); Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 11-13 , 92 S.Ct. 2318, 2324-25 , 33 L.Ed.2d 154 (1972).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ex parte Albert Lévitt
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 11, 1937.
Mr. Albert Lévitt, pro se.
Cited by 64 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Tenth Circuit (1) · D.C. Circuit (1)
Motion for leave to file a petition for an order requiring Mr. Justice Black to show cause why he should be permitted to serve as an Associate Justice of this Court.
Per Curiam:The grounds of this motion are that the .appointment of Mr. Justice Black by the President and the confirmation thereof by the Senate of the United States were null and void by reason of his ineligibility under Article I, Section 6, Clause 2, of the Constitution of the United States, and because there was[*634] no vacancy for which the appointment could lawfully be made. The motion papers disclose no interest upon the part of the petitioner other than that of a citizen and a member of the bar of this Court. That is insufficient. It is an established principle that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he. must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action and it is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public. Tyler v. Judges, 179 U. S. 405, 406; Southern Ry. Co. v. King, 217 U. S. 524, 534; Newman v. Frizzell, 238 U. S. 537, 549, 550; Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U. S. 126, 129; Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 488. The motion is denied.
Mr. Albert Lévitt, pro se.