EX PARTE ALBERT LÉVITT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Albert Lévitt, a citizen and bar member, sought to challenge Justice Hugo Black's appointment to the Supreme Court on the grounds that Black was constitutionally ineligible and no vacancy existed for the appointment. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that Lévitt lacked standing because he had not demonstrated a direct personal injury resulting from Black's appointment and merely possessed a general interest shared by all citizens. The decision reaffirmed the principle that private individuals must show concrete injury to invoke judicial review of executive or legislative action.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Motion for leave to file a petition for an order requiring Mr. Justice Black to show cause why he should be permitted to serve as an Associate Justice of this Court.
Per Curiam:
The grounds of this motion are that the .appointment of Mr. Justice Black by the President and the confirmation thereof by the Senate of the United States were null and void by reason of his ineligibility under Article I, Section 6, Clause 2, of the Constitution of the United States, and because there was no vacancy for which the appointment could lawfully be made. The motion papers disclose no interest upon the part of the petitioner other than that of a citizen and a member of the bar of this Court. That is insufficient. It is an established principle that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he. must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action and it is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public. Tyler v. Judges, 179 U. S. 405, 406; Southern Ry. Co. v. King, 217 U. S. 524, 534; Newman v. Frizzell, 238 U. S. 537, 549, 550; Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U. S. 126, 129; Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 488. The motion is denied.
Mr. Albert Lévitt, pro se.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (65 total)
-
State v. Himes, 134 Fla. 675 (Fla. 1938)…r in and for Hills-borough County and an attorney at law and officer of the Criminal Court of Record in and for Hillsborough County, Florida” not shown to be in any way directly affected by the prosecution sought to be arrested. See Ex parte Levitt, 302 U. S. 633, 58 Supt. Ct. 1, 82 L. Ed. 4931; Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U. S. 126; 42 Sup. Ct. 274, 66 L. Ed. 499; 50 C. J. 693; 17 Fla. 93. The two Executive orders' of the Governor assigning the Judge of the Criminal Court of Record of Monroe County to preside…
-
State ex rel. W. v. Gray, 74 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1954)…Fla. 250, 196 So. 487. But in the Ayres case .the standing of the relator to sue was placed squarely upon the public importance of the question he raised, whereas the present relator’s standing is subject to the gravest doubt. See Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 58 S.Ct. 1, 82 L.Ed. 493; Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 43 S.Ct. 597, 67 L.Ed. 1078; Somlyo v. Schott, supra, 45 So. 2d 502; State ex rel. Hanna v. Lee, 124 Fla. 588, 169 So. 220; Pennock v. State, 61 Fla. 383, 54 So. 1004;…
-
State ex rel. W. v. Gray, 70 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1954)…3 Fla. 250, 196 So. 487. But in the Ayres case the standing of the relator to sue was placed squarely upon the public importance of the question he raised, whereas the present relator’s standing is subject to the gravest doubt. See Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 58 S.Ct. 1, 82 L.Ed. 493; Com. of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 43 S. Ct. 597, 67 L.Ed. 1078; Somlyo v. Schott, supra, 45 So. 2d 502; State ex rel. Hanna v. Lee, 124 Fla. 588, 169 So. 220 ; Pennock [*479] v. State, 61 Fla. 383, 54 So. 1004…
Previewing 3 of 65 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Commonwealth of Mass. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (U.S. 1923)
- Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126 (U.S. 1922)
- Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 405 (U.S. 1900)
- S. Ry. Co. v. King, 217 U.S. 524 (U.S. 1910)
- Newman v. United States Ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (U.S. 1915)