Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jewell v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided December 10, 2008No. 08-1175Published

1DissentRiley, Circuit Judge

Because I believe the conclusions of the district court should be affirmed, I respectfully dissent.

A. Standing

The first issue on appeal is whether Jewell had standing to bring his claim for a tax refund. As the majority correctly points out, the prudential limits of standing generally require plaintiffs to demonstrate they are asserting their own rights, and not the rights of a third party. See Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 410, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991). This is equally true with respect to suits by corporate officers and shareholders. See Franchise Tax Bd. v. Alcan Aluminium…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Powers v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Alcan Aluminium Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. James A. Murray v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982
  4. Hames v. CravensSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1998
  5. Boatmen's Nat. Co. v. M. W. Elkins & Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1933

2 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