Talk:Standing (law)

message: i removed this sentence from the last part of the first paragraph because it was redundant. "To put it simply, the party suing has to have something to lose if the law is left on the books."   (24.242.221.231 09:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 

message: It would seem better to me that articles that contain significant technical information and citations of case law that are tied to one country should be represented in the Wikipedia by individual articles for each country. Kevin (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate Article for US 

message: The article on Martin_v._Ziherl indicates that the plaintiff didn't challenge standing until appeal, and the appellate court simply ignored the issue because they're not supposed to consider standing arguments that were only made on appeal. This article, however, argues that the defendant does have standing. Which is correct? It's entirely possible that the defendant had standing, but the court didn't say so, and so we'll need a source for something other than the decision in Martin for verifiability for that claim; in the absence of such a source, though, we should probably find a better example than Martin here. --Geoffrey 11:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is ''Martin'' relevant? 

message: This was touched on earlier in the talk page, but this article tends to reflect a US point of view. Fully 2/3 of the article is about the US, not counting the intro, which references the US throughout. We need more perspectives and from different places for this article.  --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 02:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There's several reasons for this, including the failure of most countries to adopt common sense reforms suggested by David Dudley Field II and the atrocious quality of their legal education systems.  (I wrote most of the Lawyer article and added most of the citations, so I've actually read all the academic literature documenting these issues at length.) American lawyers are always drilled early on in law school to never stop asking "cui bono"---who is the real party in interest and who has standing. So they litigate those issues like crazy, which is why we have most of the case law on these issues.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countering systemic bias 

message: Essentially the same topic Rathfelder (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Third-party standing]] 

message: I have semi-protected this article for three months due to significant vandalism/insertion of irrelevant conduct by IP-hopping anonymous editors. Neutralitytalk 19:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected 

message: Assuming usable sourcing exists (the question must have come up somewhere), could something to be added to this article or the third-party standing one, about the TX abortion law that allows uninvolved parties to sue anyone involved in an abortion procedure?  This is not about the surrounding political controversy about abortion, but only about how the usual concept of standing is bypassed.  Here is a newspaper article quoting some lawyers calling the statute a radical expansion of standing, but it is probably better to have (e.g.) some viewpoints from law journals.  I don't have anywhere near enough legal knowledge to figure out how to write about this.  Thanks. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:D4A (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Added: the TX law is the Texas Heartbeat Act, and the current article about it doesn't say anything about this issue.  2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:D4A (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas abortion law