Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

third-party standing

Read a random definition: manual gift

A quick definition of third-party standing:

Third-party standing means that someone is allowed to bring a legal claim to protect the rights of someone else. For example, a grandparent may have the right to bring a lawsuit for custody or visitation of their grandchild. To have standing in court, a person must show that they have been personally affected by the issue and that the interest they are trying to protect is within the scope of the law.

A more thorough explanation:

Definition: Third-party standing refers to the right of someone to bring a legal claim on behalf of another person or group.

In order to have third-party standing, the person bringing the claim must show that they have a personal stake in the outcome of the case and that the interests they are seeking to protect are within the scope of the law or constitution.

For example, a grandparent may have third-party standing to bring a custody or visitation case on behalf of their grandchild in some jurisdictions. This means that the grandparent can bring the case even though they are not the child's parent, because they have a personal stake in the outcome and are seeking to protect the child's interests.

Another example of third-party standing is when an advocacy group brings a lawsuit on behalf of a larger group of people who are affected by a particular issue. For instance, a disability rights group may bring a lawsuit on behalf of people with disabilities who are being denied access to public transportation.

Overall, third-party standing allows individuals or groups to bring legal claims on behalf of others who may not be able to do so themselves, in order to protect their rights and interests.

third-party record-custodian summons | third person

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.