6 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2021–2022 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Warth v. Seldinred2 sentences2022CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM 2022-NCSC-143 Opinion of the Court Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500 (1975) (observing that “the standing question in such cases is whether the constitutional or statutory provision on which the claim rests properly can be understood as granting persons in the plaintiff’s position a right to judicial relief”); Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 341 (2016) (concluding that, even though Congress has the authority to create legal rights by statute, that “does not mean that a plaintiff automatically satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a pers 2022CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM 2022-NCSC-143 Opinion of the Court Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500 (1975) (observing that “the standing question in such cases is whether the constitutional or statutory provision on which the claim rests properly can be understood as granting persons in the plaintiff’s position a right to judicial relief”); Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 341 (2016) (concluding that, even though Congress has the authority to create legal rights by statute, that “does not mean that a plaintiff automatically satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a pers | 2 | 2 |
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robinsgreen2 sentences2022CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM 2022-NCSC-143 Opinion of the Court Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500 (1975) (observing that “the standing question in such cases is whether the constitutional or statutory provision on which the claim rests properly can be understood as granting persons in the plaintiff’s position a right to judicial relief”); Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 341 (2016) (concluding that, even though Congress has the authority to create legal rights by statute, that “does not mean that a plaintiff automatically satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a pers 2022CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM 2022-NCSC-143 Opinion of the Court Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500 (1975) (observing that “the standing question in such cases is whether the constitutional or statutory provision on which the claim rests properly can be understood as granting persons in the plaintiff’s position a right to judicial relief”); Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 341 (2016) (concluding that, even though Congress has the authority to create legal rights by statute, that “does not mean that a plaintiff automatically satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a pers | 2 | 2 |
Neuse River Foundation, Inc. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc.green2 sentences2022App. 110, 114 , 574 S.E.2d 48, 51-52 (2002) (citations omitted). ¶ 14 Recently, our Supreme Court held as a matter of first impression that the North Carolina Constitution does not include an injury-in-fact requirement for standing where a purely statutory or common law right is at issue. 2022App. 110, 114 , 574 S.E.2d 48, 51-52 (2002) (citations omitted). ¶ 14 Recently, our Supreme Court held as a matter of first impression that the North Carolina Constitution does not include an injury-in-fact requirement for standing where a purely statutory or common law right is at issue. | 2 | 2 |
Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organizationgreen2 sentences2021See Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 39 (1976) (“Reduction of the threshold requirement to actual injury redressable by the court represented a substantial broadening of access to the federal courts over that previously thought to be the constitutional minimum under [the APA].”). 2021See Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 39 (1976) (“Reduction of the threshold requirement to actual injury redressable by the court represented a substantial broadening of access to the federal courts over that previously thought to be the constitutional minimum under [the APA].”). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
green
2 sentences2022In the event that plaintiff is seeking to invoke the National Historic Preservation Act, P.L. 89-665, now codified at 54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq., the only potentially relevant provision is 54 U.S.C. § 306108 , which requires federal agencies, “prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on [any Federal or federally assisted] undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, [to] take into 18Unlike claims brought under state law, which do not require a showing of “injury in fact,” Committee to Elect Dan Forest, ¶ 85, claims brought under federal law are subject to a tradition 2022In the event that plaintiff is seeking to invoke the National Historic Preservation Act, P.L. 89-665, now codified at 54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq., the only potentially relevant provision is 54 U.S.C. § 306108 , which requires federal agencies, “prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on [any Federal or federally assisted] undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, [to] take into 18Unlike claims brought under state law, which do not require a showing of “injury in fact,” Committee to Elect Dan Forest, ¶ 85, claims brought under federal law are subject to a tradition | 2 | 2022–2022 |
The Comm. To Elect Dan Forest v. Emps. Political Action Comm.
green
2 sentences2021In this case, the Court of Appeals, including both the majority and the dissent below, relied on our statement in Mangum v. Raleigh Board of Adjustment, 362 N.C. 640 (2008), to hold the North Carolina Constitution imposes an injury in fact requirement before a plaintiff may have standing.45 See Comm. to Elect Dan Forest, 260 N.C. 2021In this case, the Court of Appeals, including both the majority and the dissent below, relied on our statement in Mangum v. Raleigh Board of Adjustment, 362 N.C. 640 (2008), to hold the North Carolina Constitution imposes an injury in fact requirement before a plaintiff may have standing.45 See Comm. to Elect Dan Forest, 260 N.C. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Mangum v. Raleigh Board of Adjustment
green
2 sentences2021In this case, the Court of Appeals, including both the majority and the dissent below, relied on our statement in Mangum v. Raleigh Board of Adjustment, 362 N.C. 640 (2008), to hold the North Carolina Constitution imposes an injury in fact requirement before a plaintiff may have standing.45 See Comm. to Elect Dan Forest, 260 N.C. 2021In this case, the Court of Appeals, including both the majority and the dissent below, relied on our statement in Mangum v. Raleigh Board of Adjustment, 362 N.C. 640 (2008), to hold the North Carolina Constitution imposes an injury in fact requirement before a plaintiff may have standing.45 See Comm. to Elect Dan Forest, 260 N.C. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.