Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Colorado Medical Society v. Hickenlooper

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided July 19, 2012No. 11CA1005Published

1Concurrence

Judge FURMAN

specially concurring.

€60 I write separately because I think plaintiffs lack standing in this case. Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring the Governor to withdraw his request to opt out of the physician supervision requirement of the Social Security Act and preventing the Governor from requesting an opt-out in the future. Since plaintiffs have not alleged injuries to any legally protected interests so as to give them a claim for relief, I think the prudential doctrine of standing should apply to forestall examination of the merits of this case.

T61 Standing is a "threshold issue…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Cannon v. University of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Alexander v. SandovalSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  3. National Credit Union Administration v. First National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1998
  4. Ainscough v. OwensSupreme Court of Colorado · 2004
  5. Conrad v. City & County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1982

6 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