Legal Opinion

Howell v. McAuliffe

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided July 22, 2016No. Record 160784Published

1Dissent · MimsJustice Mims

Because the Court's holding that petitioners have standing is not supported by our precedents limiting the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, and because the General Assembly by statute has established the standing requirement and mechanism for challenges to voter registration, I must reluctantly dissent.

I. Standing is Jurisdictional and Fundamental to the Limited Role of the Judiciary

The question of standing can be technical and esoteric. Yet it is fundamental to the proper function of the judiciary. In fact, the doctrine of standing implicates our very jurisdiction and our limited role…

Also in this document: Dissent · Powell.

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. Spokeo, Inc. v. RobinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
  3. Reynolds v. SimsSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  4. Raines v. ByrdSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  5. United States v. HaysSupreme Court of the United States · 1995

37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API