Properties (45)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instanceOf |
legal case
|
| gptkbp:caseOutcome |
Significant for constitutional law
No standing to sue Reinforced judicial restraint Limited taxpayer lawsuits against government actions |
| gptkbp:caseTypes |
Constitutional law
No. 1 |
| gptkbp:citedBy |
262 U.S. 447
|
| gptkbp:controversy |
December 12, 1923
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Unanimous decision |
| gptkbp:decidedBy |
gptkb:Justice_William_Howard_Taft
1923 |
| gptkbp:firstClaim |
Influenced later cases on standing
|
| gptkbp:historicalContext |
Post-World War I America
|
| gptkbp:historicalEvent |
Challenged the constitutionality of federal spending
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Frothingham v. Mellon
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Taxpayer standing doctrine
|
| gptkbp:judges |
gptkb:Justice_Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr.
gptkb:Justice_Louis_Brandeis Judicial review of legislative actions |
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
Federal jurisdiction
|
| gptkbp:legalStatus |
Separation of powers
New Deal legislation Implications for federalism Taxpayer standing Dismissed without reaching merits Established limits on taxpayer standing Framework for assessing standing Reaffirmed limits on federal court jurisdiction Taxpayer's right to challenge federal spending Influenced_the_interpretation_of_Article_III |
| gptkbp:notableFeature |
Details of the legal arguments presented
Important for taxpayer litigation Relevant in discussions of judicial power Summary of taxpayer standing issues Analyzed taxpayer's interest in government spending |
| gptkbp:outcome |
Dismissed for lack of standing
|
| gptkbp:party |
gptkb:Edith_Frothingham
gptkb:James_Mellon |
| gptkbp:politicalParty |
gptkb:Justice_William_Howard_Taft
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
Set precedent for future cases
subsequent taxpayer standing cases |
| gptkbp:relatedPatent |
gptkb:Massachusetts_v._Mellon
Standing doctrine |