← All Authorities
United States strike out and summary judgmentamenability and standing

DaimlerChrysler Corp v Cuno

547 U.S. 332 (2006)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Supreme Court
Year2006
StatusBinding authority

Summary

State taxpayers generally lack standing under Article III to challenge state tax credits; federal taxpayer standing is confined to Establishment Clause challenges to congressional appropriations.

Key Principle

State taxpayers generally lack standing to challenge state tax credits under the Establishment Clause; taxpayer standing is limited to congressional appropriations.

Area of Law

procedure

Related Cases

Getswift Ltd v Webb (2022) 276 CLR 553

High Court of Australia held there is no power to make a common fund order in favour of litigation funders at the interlocutory stage of a class action.

UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77

Anshun estoppel bars relitigation where it was unreasonable not to raise the issue in earlier proceedings; re-litigation may also constitute abuse of process.

Palmer v Ayres (2017) 259 CLR 478

High Court of Australia held the reflective loss principle (Prudential Assurance rule) does not apply in Australia, permitting shareholders to recover losses independently of the company.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of DaimlerChrysler Corp v Cuno and how it applies to your situation.

Explain DaimlerChrysler Corp v Cuno