case or controversy requirement in California

2023(Fund Liquidation Holdings, supra, 991 F.3d at p. 383, fn. 7 .) Even then, however—as Oliver illustrates under California law—the mere suggestion of the original plaintiff’s nonexistence does not necessarily defeat subject matter jurisdiction.

2023(Fund Liquidation Holdings, supra, 991 F.3d at p. 383, fn. 7 .) Even then, however—as Oliver illustrates under California law—the mere suggestion of the original plaintiff’s nonexistence does not necessarily defeat subject matter jurisdiction.

2025Article III of the United States Constitution confines federal judicial power “to the resolution of ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies,’ ” and this case-or-controversy requirement requires the plaintiff to have “a ‘ “personal stake” ’ in the case—in other words, standing.” (TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (2021) 594 U.S. 413, 424 (TransUnion).) To establish Article III standing, a party must have suffered “an ‘injury in fact’—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized [citations], and (b) ‘actual or imminent, not “conjectural” or “hypothetical,” ’ [citations].” (Luj

2025Article III of the United States Constitution confines federal judicial power “to the resolution of ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies,’ ” and this case-or-controversy requirement requires the plaintiff to have “a ‘ “personal stake” ’ in the case—in other words, standing.” (TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (2021) 594 U.S. 413, 424 (TransUnion).) To establish Article III standing, a party must have suffered “an ‘injury in fact’—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized [citations], and (b) ‘actual or imminent, not “conjectural” or “hypothetical,” ’ [citations].” (Luj

2025Article III of the United States Constitution confines federal judicial power “to the resolution of ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies,’ ” and this case-or-controversy requirement requires the plaintiff to have “a ‘ “personal stake” ’ in the case—in other words, standing.” (TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (2021) 594 U.S. 413, 424 (TransUnion).) To establish Article III standing, a party must have suffered “an ‘injury in fact’—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized [citations], and (b) ‘actual or imminent, not “conjectural” or “hypothetical,” ’ [citations].” (Luj

2024(Ibid.) However, “state courts need not impose the same standing or remedial requirements that govern federal-court proceedings.” (Lyons, supra, 461 U.S. at p. 113 .) In Lyons, the Supreme Court explained that Article III standing principles precluded a federal court from granting injunctive relief to a man unlawfully choked by police (because he was not likely to be imminently injured again); however, the Court noted that the states have no such requirement and “may permit their courts to use injunctions to oversee the conduct of law enforcement authorities on a continuing basis.” (Ibid.) “We

2024(Ibid.) However, “state courts need not impose the same standing or remedial requirements that govern federal-court proceedings.” (Lyons, supra, 461 U.S. at p. 113 .) In Lyons, the Supreme Court explained that Article III standing principles precluded a federal court from granting injunctive relief to a man unlawfully choked by police (because he was not likely to be imminently injured again); however, the Court noted that the states have no such requirement and “may permit their courts to use injunctions to oversee the conduct of law enforcement authorities on a continuing basis.” (Ibid.) “We

2017There the court considered whether the defendant's appeal from a parole revocation was mooted by the fact that he had completed the entire term of imprisonment underlying **17 the revocation. ( Id . at p. 3, 118 S.Ct. 978 .) Interpreting the case-or-controversy requirement of article III, section 2 of the federal Constitution ( id . at p. 7, 118 S.Ct. 978 ), the court held that a violation of parole does not result in civil disabilities resembling those that stem from a criminal conviction ( id . at p. 12, 118 S.Ct. 978 , citing Lane v. Williams (1982) 455 U.S. 624 , 632, 102 S.Ct. 1322 , 71 L

2017There the court considered whether the defendant's appeal from a parole revocation was mooted by the fact that he had completed the entire term of imprisonment underlying **17 the revocation. ( Id . at p. 3, 118 S.Ct. 978 .) Interpreting the case-or-controversy requirement of article III, section 2 of the federal Constitution ( id . at p. 7, 118 S.Ct. 978 ), the court held that a violation of parole does not result in civil disabilities resembling those that stem from a criminal conviction ( id . at p. 12, 118 S.Ct. 978 , citing Lane v. Williams (1982) 455 U.S. 624 , 632, 102 S.Ct. 1322 , 71 L

2008(See Anderson v. CNH U.S. Pension Plan (8th Cir. 2008) 515 F.3d 823, 827 [after denial of class certification, “the voluntary settlement reached by the named plaintiffs with both defendants leads us to conclude that the entire case is now moot” although agreement reserved right to appeal, because plaintiff did not establish a “continuing interest... in shifting costs and attorneys’ fees to putative class members”].) Here, plaintiff has a similar lack of continuing personal stake in this litigation.

2002While the California forfeiture statutes were initially patterned after the federal forfeiture laws, People v. $497,590 United States Currency (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 145, 151 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 185 ]; People v. $28,500 United States Currency, supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at page 468, the 1994 amendments to California’s statutory scheme imposed very different burdens of proof on the government and the claimant than did the analogous federal forfeiture law then in effect.

2002While the California forfeiture statutes were initially patterned after the federal forfeiture laws, People v. $497,590 United States Currency (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 145, 151 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 185 ]; People v. $28,500 United States Currency, supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at page 468, the 1994 amendments to California’s statutory scheme imposed very different burdens of proof on the government and the claimant than did the analogous federal forfeiture law then in effect.

2002(E.g., U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Property (1st Cir. 1991) 942 F.2d 74 , 78 [to satisfy standing requirement, all “that needs to be shown is a ‘facially colorable interest in the proceedings sufficient to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement and “prudential considerations defining and limiting the role of the court” ’ [Citations.]”]; U.S. v. Cambio Exacto, S.A., supra, 166 F.3d at p. 527 [‘“[A]n allegation of ownership and some evidence of ownership are together sufficient to establish standing to contest a civil forfeiture’ ”]; U.S. v. $9,041,598.68, supra, 163 F.3d at p. 245 [claimant

2002(E.g., U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Property (1st Cir. 1991) 942 F.2d 74 , 78 [to satisfy standing requirement, all “that needs to be shown is a ‘facially colorable interest in the proceedings sufficient to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement and “prudential considerations defining and limiting the role of the court” ’ [Citations.]”]; U.S. v. Cambio Exacto, S.A., supra, 166 F.3d at p. 527 [‘“[A]n allegation of ownership and some evidence of ownership are together sufficient to establish standing to contest a civil forfeiture’ ”]; U.S. v. $9,041,598.68, supra, 163 F.3d at p. 245 [claimant

2002(E.g., U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Property (1st Cir. 1991) 942 F.2d 74 , 78 [to satisfy standing requirement, all “that needs to be shown is a ‘facially colorable interest in the proceedings sufficient to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement and “prudential considerations defining and limiting the role of the court” ’ [Citations.]”]; U.S. v. Cambio Exacto, S.A., supra, 166 F.3d at p. 527 [‘“[A]n allegation of ownership and some evidence of ownership are together sufficient to establish standing to contest a civil forfeiture’ ”]; U.S. v. $9,041,598.68, supra, 163 F.3d at p. 245 [claimant

1971Lynch v. Superior Court (1970) 1 Cal.3d 910, 912 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 670 , 464 P.2d 126 ].) They also draw our attention to the long series of United States Supreme Court decisions which have elaborated on the case or controversy requirement.

1971Lynch v. Superior Court (1970) 1 Cal.3d 910, 912 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 670 , 464 P.2d 126 ].) They also draw our attention to the long series of United States Supreme Court decisions which have elaborated on the case or controversy requirement.