State Ex Rel. Clifton v. Howard

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming certification of a class challenging a law on statutory and procedural due process grounds
• finding “[t]he record fully supports th[e] conclusion ... that the violation involved was capable of repetition but evading review,” where the plaintiff experienced “repeated problems” maintaining his food assistance benefits
• “Standing is a threshold question in every federal case . . . .”
• internal quotation marks and citation -5- Case No. 17-6448 Howard v. Tennessee omitted
• “To show that a statutory provision creates a federal right for a particular class of persons, enforceable under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that Congress intended the provision to benefit the plaintiff, (2
• “To uphold the constitutional requirement that federal courts hear only active cases or controversies, as required by Article III, section 2 of the federal constitution, a plaintiff must have a personal interest at the commencement of the litigation (standing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).