Opinion ID: 555114
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Can Standing Be Determined After a Jury Verdict?

Text: 45 Nor-West next argues that [t]o deny standing after a full adversarial trial, moreover, defeats the basic policies underlying standing. Appellant's Opening Brief at 31. In support of this proposition, Nor-West cites Thurston v. Dekle, 531 F.2d 1264, 1270-71 (5th Cir.1976) (Thurston ), vacated on other grounds, 438 U.S. 901, 98 S.Ct. 3118, 57 L.Ed.2d 1144 (1978), and 13A C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, Jurisdiction 2d Sec. 3531.15 at 105 (2d ed. 1984) (Wright & Miller). 46 The Wright & Miller treatise does not support Nor-West's argument. These commentators state that: 47 [i]f the case survives to trial, the burden of establishing standing remains with the plaintiff. It may be possible to arrange the trial to present standing issues first, so that undue waste is avoided if the case must be dismissed.... After a trial, the court of appeals reviews the matter [of standing] on the entire record, extending appropriate deference to the findings of the trial court. 48 Wright & Miller Sec. 3531.15, at 104-05 (emphasis added). Thus, the Wright & Miller treatise clearly suggests that the issue of standing may be resolved at trial, and Nor-West's representation to the contrary is incorrect. 49 In Thurston, a class of city employees alleged that the city's procedures for dismissal were constitutionally inadequate. After the district court entered judgment for the plaintiff, a Fifth Circuit decision deprived the class representative of standing. The Fifth Circuit nevertheless decided to reach the merits, holding that: 50 [u]nder the unique facts of this case, we hold that where the purpose of the standing requirement has been fulfilled by the presence of an adversary context which has remained concrete throughout the entire process and where standing was subsequently determined not to exist because of a change in law affecting subject matter jurisdiction, this court should reach the merits. 51 Thurston, 531 F.2d at 1271. Because Nor-West's standing has not been affected by decisions issued while the present case was on appeal, Thurston is obviously not on point. 52 Accordingly, we hold that the district court's decision to decide the question of standing at trial was not reversible error.