Skip to main content

Search

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.37 Oklahoma

Standing is a jurisdictional question in Oklahoma.454 It can be raised at any time, including sua sponte by the court.455 The state constitution does not have a case or controversy clause, and it appears that the state supreme court’s standing doctrine is not based on any state constitutional provision.456 The state supreme court nonetheless declines to issue advisory opinions or answer hypothetical questions when no case or controversy is

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.38 Oregon

Standing in Oregon is created by legislative enactment. In Kellas v. Department of Corrections,467 a prisoner’s father filed suit to challenge an administrative regulation that denied his son credit for time served under house arrest.

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.39 Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Constitution does not have a case or controversy clause, and Pennsylvania’s standing precepts are not derived from the state constitution.473 Instead, Pennsylvania’s standing doctrine “is a prudential, judicially-created tool meant to winnow out those matters in which the litigants have no direct interest in pursuing the matter.”474 A lack of standing does not deprive a Pennsylvania court of jurisdiction over the case.475

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.40 Rhode Island

Rhode Island’s constitution does not include a case or controversy clause.487 Nonetheless, the court considers judicial power to be limited to cases and controversies, and refuses to issue advisory opinions or rule on abstract questions.488

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.41 South Carolina

Under South Carolina Supreme Court precedent, there are three ways in which a litigant may establish standing: by statute, under the principle of constitutional standing, and via the “public importance” exception to general standing requirements.497

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.42 South Dakota

In South Dakota, standing is a threshold question that must be resolved in order to determine if the court has power to act.506 A 2016 South Dakota Supreme Court decision notes that the state constitution vests appellate jurisdiction in the state supreme court “as may be provided by the Legislature” and in the circuit courts “as may be provided by law,” and grants the circuit courts original jurisdiction over “cases.”507 However, no decisions have been found that state clearly whether the state’

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.43 Tennessee

In Tennessee, standing is based at least in part on the state constitution’s separation of powers provisions.516 This branch of the standing doctrine requires a showing of three elements: (1) an injury-in-fact, i.e., a distinct and palpable injury that is not conjectural or hypothetical and not predicated upon an interest that the litigant shares in common with the general public;517 (2) a causal connection between the claimed injury and the challenged conduct, which can be satisfied by showing

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.44 Texas

The standing doctrine in Texas is based on the state constitution’s provision for separation of powers among the branches of government, and on its open courts provision, which guarantees court access only to a “person for an injury done him in his land, goods, person, or reputation.”527 Standing is jurisdictional and can be raised for the first time on appeal.528

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.45 Utah

Utah’s standing doctrine is based on the state constitution’s separation of powers provision and is a jurisdictional requirement that can be raised at any time.540

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.46 Vermont

Standing in Vermont is based on the state constitution’s limits on judicial power and its provision for separation of power.558 Standing is jurisdictional and unwaivable, and can be raised at any time.559 Standing is to be determined as of the commencement of a suit.560

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.47 Virginia

Standing to maintain an action is a preliminary jurisdictional issue in Virginia.569 The standing question has “no relation to the substantive merits of an action.”570 It appears that the standing doctrine in Virginia is based on common law rather than any state constitutional provision.571

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.48 Washington

The Washington Supreme Court requires that cases meet justiciability requirements, which encompass the traditional limiting doctrines of standing, mootness, and ripeness, as well as the federal case or controversy requirement.585 The standards for justiciability are “(1) . . .

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.49 West Virginia

In West Virginia, standing is a question of subject matter jurisdiction.603 Generally the West Virginia Supreme Court’s standing decisions do not cite a state constitutional provision as the basis for the state’s standing rules.604 However, a 2021 decision refers to the state constitutional provision about the jurisdiction of courts as establishing the principle that there must be a justiciable case or controversy in order for a state court to have jurisdiction.

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.51 Wyoming

Wyoming’s constitution does not include a case or controversy requirement,622 but the state supreme court has described the state’s standing doctrine as rooted in the separation of powers.623 Standing is not jurisdictional,624 but nonetheless can be raised at any time.625 If a plaintiff establishes standing for one of the claims in a case, it is not necessary to establish standing over the others.

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.1 Alabama

The Alabama Supreme Court has interpreted the clause of the state constitution that assigns the “judicial power” to the state’s unified court system as limiting courts’ jurisdiction to cases and controversies.44 Alabama Supreme Court decisions frequently describe the basic rule of standing as:

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.2 Alaska

Standing in Alaska is not a constitutional doctrine. Instead, it is a rule of judicial self-restraint based on the principle that courts should not resolve abstract questions or issue advisory opinions.55 Its basic requirement is adversity.56

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.3 Arizona

Arizona’s constitution does not include a case or controversy requirement.64 The Arizona Supreme Court has adopted its standing doctrine as a matter of sound judicial policy,65 but has also stated that the state constitution’s express requirement that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches exercise their powers separately underlies the court’s standing requirements.66 Standing is not a jurisdictional requirement.

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.4 Arkansas

The Arkansas Supreme Court’s articulation of its standing doctrine does not appear to adopt Article III standards. Its standing decisions typically do not rely on, and often do not even cite Article III decisions. The court does not appear to have issued any decisions adopting the U.S. Supreme Court’s rule that an injury must be concrete and particularized in order to support standing. It has never even cited Lujan, Spokeo, or Ramirez. In Chubb Lloyds Ins. Co. v.

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.6 Colorado

The Colorado Supreme Court bases part of its standing doctrine—the requirement of an actual injury—on the state constitution’s separation of powers provision.95 However, much of the standard is a prudential exercise of judicial restraint.96 Colorado treats standing as a threshold jurisdictional question.97