Standing's Expected Value

Nash, Jonathan Remy

Journal: Michigan Law Review

Volume: 111

First Page: 1283

Year: 2013

Bluebook Citation: 111 MICH. L. REV. 1283 (2013)

Author: Jonathan Remy Nash: all 26 publications


Citation analytics

How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Cited
1
Citing decision
1
Courts citing
Most recently cited by1
  • 2020Dr. David S. Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc. 11th Cir.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Abstract

This Article argues in favor of standing based on expected value of harm. Standing doctrine has been constructed in a way that is oblivious to the idea of expected value. If people have suffered a loss with a positive expected value, they have suffered an "injury in fact." The incorporation of expected value into standing doctrine casts doubt on many of the Supreme Court's decisions in which it denies standing because the relevant injury is too "speculative" or is not "likely" to be redressed by a decree in the plaintiff's favor. This Article addresses this shortcoming in standing jurisprudence by proposing a theory of expected value-based standing.

It argues that the Constitution presents no obstacle to expected value-based standing, that the "injury-in-fact" test requires only a positive expected value, and that the prudential barrier to generalized grievances is the sole obstacle to expected value-based standing.

Chat with this journal article using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this journal article, verify citations, and research related authorities. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.