Opinion ID: 2617552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: federal versus state standing

Text: Standing [6] in the federal legal system is imbued with a constitutional/jurisdictional dismension, while in the body of state law it fits under the rubric of ordinary procedure. The U.S. Constitution, Article III, has long been held to require that a case or controversy is essentially to invoke federal judicial jurisdiction and that a person's competence to bring an action is a core component of standing in a case-or-controversy inquiry. [7] It is for this reason that standing is an integral part of the mechanism for invoking the federal judiciary's power. [8] Oklahoma's fundamental law places no restraint on the judiciary's power analogous to the federal case-or-controversy requirement. Under the earlier Code of Civil Procedure [9] the suit had to be brought by the real party in interest. [10] That requirement has always been non-jurisdictional. [11] If a state court proceeded to adjudicate a claim pressed by one not in that status, its decision was not fraught with jurisdictional infirmity but rather regarded as erroneous for want of proof to establish an important element of the claim. [12] An error in this category is waivable at the option of the defendant; and, if not asserted on appeal, the reviewing court may reach the merits of the case despite a plaintiff's apparent lack of standing at nisi prius.