Article III Standing (Litigator Series)
In Hollingsworth v.
- Saving the Seed: Genetic diversity and European agriculture (Natural Resource Management Set).
- The Law Society of Upper Canada.
- Litigation (Civil): Practice and Procedure Courses!
Perry , the Court considered the question of whether the official proponents of Proposition 8, a state measure that amended the California Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, had standing to defend the constitutionality of the provision on appeal. After rejecting the argument that the proponents of Proposition 8 had a particularized injury in their own right, the Court considered the argument that the plaintiffs were formally authorized through some sort of official act to litigate on behalf of the State of California.
Although the proponents were authorized by California law to argue in defense of the proposition, the Court found that this authorization, by itself, was insufficient to create standing.
The Court expressed concern that, although California law authorized the proponents to argue in favor of Proposition 8, the proponents were still acting as private individuals, not as state officials or as agents that were controlled by the state. In a number of cases, particularly where a plaintiff seeks prospective relief, such as an injunction or declaratory relief, the Supreme Court has strictly construed the nature of the injury-in-fact necessary to obtain such judicial remedy.
Resurrecting the Public Voice: The Expansion of Standing in Patent Litigation
First, the Court has been hesitant to assume jurisdiction over matters in which the plaintiff seeking relief cannot articulate a concrete harm. More recently, in Clapper v.
- Shooting Star (Star Minds)!
- Substantial Interest: Standing!
- Wild Winds of Mayaland!
- Resurrecting the Public Voice: The Expansion of Standing in Patent Litigation?
- Education & Admissions.
At Stroz Friedberg, Hanley oversaw investigations of, and responses to, data breaches suffered by multiple Fortune companies. Hanley also supervised forensics analyses and investigations involving hundreds of digital devices, email accounts and online repositories.
Hanley also was an AUSA in the Central District of California, where he was a member of the General Crimes and Violent Crimes Units and was responsible for investigating and prosecuting a variety of federal crimes, including white collar fraud, bank robberies, narcotic and firearm offenses, and theft cases. In addition to his work in government, Hanley was a litigation associate at two top tier law firms.
- You Dont Have to Live With It! Uncovering natures power with SottoPelle bio-identical hormones!
- Der gute Mensch von B. (German Edition);
- Commentary on Data Privacy & Information Security Subjects!
He focused his practice on complex commercial litigation, securities litigation, and intellectual property litigation, appearing in both federal and state courts. Hanley is a frequent speaker on cybersecurity and cybercrime issues and has appeared on panels sponsored by the National Advocacy Center, the San Francisco Bar Association, the Santa Clara Bar Association, and various legal and security conferences.