Skip to main content

Search

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.7 Connecticut

Connecticut’s constitution does not contain a case or controversy requirement.106 Instead, the state constitution provides that the jurisdiction of the state courts “shall be defined by law.”107 The state supreme court has stated that, “although we often borrow from federal case law, our jurisdictional jurisprudence is our own.”108 Standing is a jurisdictional question.109

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.8 Delaware

Delaware’s Constitution does not include a case or controversy requirement. Instead, “state courts apply the concept of standing as a matter of self-restraint to avoid the rendering of advisory opinions at the behest of parties who are ‘mere intermeddlers.’”124

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.9 District of Columbia

The court system in the District of Columbia was created under Article I of the Constitution, not Article III.130 Nonetheless, for prudential reasons,131 the highest court in the District “consistently” follows Article III’s standing requirements.132 The court treats standing as jurisdictional,133 but a dismissal for want of standing should be without prejudice.13

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.10 Florida

A seminal Florida Supreme Court decision holds:

Unlike the federal courts, Florida’s circuit courts are tribunals of plenary jurisdiction. Art. V, § 5, Fla. Const. They have authority over any matter not expressly denied them by the constitution or applicable statutes. Accordingly, the doctrine of standing certainly exists in Florida, but not in the rigid sense employed in the federal system.151

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.11 Georgia

Standing is a jurisdictional issue in Georgia.162 Although Georgia’s constitution does not include a cases or controversies clause,163 the Georgia Supreme Court finds a basis for its standing doctrine in the state constitution’s grant of “the judicial power of the state” to certain classes of courts.164 It interprets this constitutional provision to require a “genuine controversy,” meaning that the party “must have some right at stake that requires

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.12 Hawaii

Hawaii’s constitution does not have a case or controversy requirement.189 Standing is “solely an issue of justiciability arising out of prudential concerns of judicial self-governance,” based on concerns about “the proper—and property limited—role of courts in a democratic society.”190 Since it is not jurisdictional, courts are not required to raise standing sua sponte, although they may do so if they choose.191 “Standing requirements shou

Consumer Class Actions: D.4.13 Idaho

In Idaho, the standing doctrine appears to be judicially created, rather than based on a state constitutional provision.197 The state supreme court has defined the standing doctrine as “the requirement that each party to the suit has such a personal stake in the outcome as to assure the court that a justiciable controversy exists. In other words, it must be shown that the parties to the lawsuit have a tangible and legally protectable interest in the subject matter of the litigation.”198

Consumer Class Actions: G.1 Introduction

This appendix collects useful class action-related websites. Some of these services may be accessible only through paid subscription or membership fees. Live weblinks are included in the digital version of this appendix and will be updated when possible.

Automobile Fraud: ARIZONA

Arizona Department of Transportation

Motor Vehicle Division

Dealer Licensing Unit, Mail Drop 555M

P.O. Box 2100

Phoenix, AZ 85001-2100

1801 W. Jefferson St.

Phoenix, AZ 85007

Phone: (602) 712-7571 (press 7) Fax: (602) 712-3268

www.azdot.gov

Automobile Fraud: COLORADO

Physical Address:

Department of Revenue

Auto Industry Division

1697 Cole Blvd., Suite 200A

Lakewood, CO 80401

Mailing Address:

Colorado Department of Revenue

Auto Industry Division

P.O. Box 17087

Denver, CO 80217-0087

Phone: (303) 205-5604 TDD: (303) 205-5940

Main Fax Number: (303) 866-2597

Legal Fax Number: (303) 866-2598

www.colorado.gov/revenue/dmv