William Clayton Henry v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a lessee had Article III standing to sue under the Takings Clause when it had an arguable interest in the property
• explaining that “[s]tanding is necessary for a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, so the court has a duty to raise a standing defect (like any other jurisdictional defect) on its own initiative”
• explaining that dicta is not entitled to preclusive effect
• “Only if the claimed protected interest is ‘wholly insubstantial and frivolous’ does a claim’s failure on its merits turn into a jurisdictional defect.”
• “Yet just because a plaintiff’s claim might fail on the merits does not deprive the plaintiff of standing to assert it. ‘If that were the test, every losing claim would be dismissed for want of standing.’” (citation omitted
• defining “claim” under Ohio claim- preclusion law as “factual occurrence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).