Legal Opinion
City of New York v. Clinton
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided February 12, 1998No. CIV. 97-2393(TFH), CIV. 97-2463(TFH)PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THOMAS F. HOGAN, District Judge.
This case requires the Court to adjudge the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act. Before reaching the constitutional challenge, however, the Court must first conclude that it has jurisdiction to hear the ease, by determining that Plaintiffs in this action have Article III standing. Based on the briefs and exhibits submitted by the parties and amici curiae 1 , and argument at a hearing conducted on January 14, 1998, the Court finds that these Plaintiffs have demonstrated the requisite injury to have standing; furthermore, it finds that…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Allen v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights OrganizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Clinton v. City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- City of San Antonio v. HartmanTexas Supreme Court · 2006
- Conservation Northwest v. Harris ShermanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- State of Alaska, Office of Lieutenant Governor, Division of Elections and Director Gail Fenumiai, in an official capacity v. Recall DunleavyAlaska Supreme Court · 2021
- Clinton v. City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.