Categorized | Articles, NSP Traffic Study

Standing Cross-reference

Posted on August 25th, 2011 by Marc Stevens

Standing is the same wherever you go, the important elements are (1) the violation of a right, a legal injury; and (2) damage.  The only “authority” one should need is to look at the Declaration of Independence for the only reason for the establishment of an American government:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” (Emphasis mine)

This of course is repeated in “state” constitutions such as Arizona: “governments … are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”  Arizona constitution article II § 2. This is why standing and jurisdiction must always involve a plaintiff’s rights.

However, statists, especially attorneys, are not interested in the plain truth.  That is why they claim everything I write is taken out of context.  An example is standing.  This incredibly simple issue is intentionally complicated by attorneys whose money is made arguing.  Attorneys  will claim because I provide quotes and citations from civil cases, that standing and jurisdiction only applies to civil cases, not criminal cases.  One attorney in Arizona, Paula Burgess, acting as a judge, told me with a straight face article II § 2 did not apply to criminal cases.  In Ms. Burgess’s opinion the criminal court system was either not created by the Arizona constitution or is not a part of the government.  It’s absurd to claim standing and jurisdiction requirements do not apply in criminal cases.

It’s simple logic and common sense, juris doctorate not required:

(1) the government was established/instituted for one purpose i.e., to secure/protect rights;

(2) the courts being a part of the government have the same singular purpose i.e., to secure/protect rights;

(3) the courts’ jurisdiction has one purpose i.e., to secure/protect rights;

(4) Standing to invoke, or invoking a court’s jurisdiction requires the allegation a right has been, or is being violated.

Standing applies in criminal cases, even if the word itself may not be customarily  used; the underlying principal is what’s important.  What attorneys probably don’t like is it doesn’t require a one-hundred thousand dollar education to know and understand it; all it requires is to know what the purpose of government is supposed to be.  Maybe one of the reasons attorneys don’t like this is that it’s a threat to their monopoly.

Let’s examine the heinous crime called the “unauthorized practice of law”, attorneys LOVE this.  Their passionate enforcement is evidence enough (try to assist a friend in court and watch the attorneys come alive).  In California it is “punishable by up to one year in a county jail or by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1000), or by both…” California Business and Professions Code § 6126(a).

Government has one purpose “governments … are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”  Arizona constitution article II § 2.  Whose rights am I accused of violating if I am accused of the “unauthorized practice of law” crime?  If you have trouble identifying whose rights to life, liberty or property are violated, then don’t despair because it violates no one’s rights.  It’s the same if I am growing marijuana on my property, it violates no one’s rights and injures no one.  I wonder how many attorneys would be out of work if the “drug war” ended tomorrow?  Looks like a motive to me.

Remember, attorneys are part of the system, their allegiance is to that system because that system is where and how they get such high profits.  Anything that would take away fom their profits will be attacked.  Therefore, anything that would take business away from the courts will be opposed by this aggression-drunk cult.

As designed by this cult, there will always be conflicting “precedents” and there are probably “opinions” out there that may appear to conflict, or actually conflict with, the cases I provide below.  Do not let that discourage you, remember the cases I have cited are consistent with constitutions, enabling acts and the Declaration of Independence.  When conflicting “opinions” are brought forth, then take that as evidence that attorneys will say anything.  It’s one more reason not to give any credibility to an attorney.

This cross-reference is a work in progress, so please check back often for updates.  I will have each “state” standing “authority” posted.  And remember, I, Marc Stevens, am not an attorney, so everything is for entertainment purposes only and if anything here resembles the truth, then it must have been taken out of context.

Distinctions between crime and tort

While the same act may constitute both a crime and a tort, the distinction between crimes and torts is based on the public nature of the criminal offense.

The distinction with respect to the character of the rights affected and the nature of the wrong is this:  A tort is merely a private wrong in that it is an infringement of the civil rights of individuals, considered merely as individuals, while a crime is a public wrong in that it affects public rights and is an injury to the whole community, considered as a community in it’s social aggregate capacity.

The distinction between a tort and a crime lies in the difference between the methods by which the remedy for the wrong is pursued; a wrong for which the remedy is pursued by, and at the discretion of, the individual injured or his representative is a tort, and a wrong for which the wrongdoer is proceeded against by the sovereign or state for the purpose of punishment is a crime.”  Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol 22, page 26 (2006 ed).  Supporting citations from text:

Ind-State ex rel Johnson v. White Circuit Court, 225 Ind 602, 77 N.E.2d 298…Mich.-People v. Veenstra, 337 Mich. 427, 60 N.W.2d 309…Pa.-Com. v. Malloy, 304 Pa.Super. 297, 450 A.2d 689…Ala.-Holland v. State, 440 So.2d 1236…N.J.- Tomlin v. Hildreth, 65 N.J. L. 438, 47 A. 649…N.C.-State Highway and Public Works Comm. v. Cobb, 215 N.C. 556, 2 SE2d 565…

Alabama:

“There are only two elements in the corpus delecti of an offense: (1) That a certain result has been produced, and (2) that a person is criminally responsible for that result.”  Ex parte Slaton, 680 So.2d 909, 925 (Ala. 1996).

““Corpus delecti” consists of two elements: that a certain result has been produced that some person is criminally responsible for the act.”  Johnson v. State, 473 So.2d 607, 609.

“Thus, although a certain section of Amendment III appears on its face to be discriminatory, because “plaintiff in this case alleged that he or she suffered an injury under this section, no case or controversy was ever presented to the trial court to invoke its jurisdiction…”

“Under Alabama law, every action in tort consists of three elements: The existence of a legal duty by defendant to plaintiff; a breach of that duty; and damage as the proximate result.  Alabama Power Co. v. Guy, 281 Ala. 583, 206 So.2d 594, 599 (1967).”  Dobbs v. Alabama Power Co., 549 So.2d 35, 36 (Ala. 1989).

“To present a justiciable case or controversy, the individual plaintiff must have standing to sue; to have standing, the individual must allege an injury directly arising from or connected with the wrong alleged.  The standing requirement applies whether the plaintiff sues individually or on behalf of a class.”  Ex Parte Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 582 So2d 469, 474…

“When a party without standing purports to commence an action, the trial court acquires no subject matter jurisdiction.  Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation District, 925 S.W.2d 618, 626…(‘standing is a necessary component of subject matter jurisdiction’).  See also Rames v. Bryd , 521 US 811…(‘“standing is perhaps the most important of [the jurisdictional] doctrines’”); National Organization for Women, Inc., v. Scheidler , 510 US 249…(‘standing represents a jurisdictional requirement which remains open to review at all stages of the litigation’)…(‘standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite  to every case and may be raised at any stage of the proceedings’)…”  Ex parte James, 836 So2d 813, 871, 872-873.

“Standing requires an injury in fact…When a party without standing puports to commence an action, the trial court acquires no subject matter jurisdiction…If a named plaintiff has not been injured by the wrong alleged in the complaint, then no case or controversy is presented…A party’s injury must be “tangible,”…”  Kid’s Care, Inc. v. Ala. Dept’ of Hum. Res., 843 So.2d 164, 166-167 (Ala. 2002).

“Standing turns on whether the party has been injured in fact and whether the injury is to a legally protected right.”  Walters v. Stewart, 838 So.2d 1047.

“Judicial power is authority vested in some court, officer or person, to hear and determine when the rights of person or property, or the propriety of doing an act, are the subject-matter of adjudication.”  State v. Jelks, 35 So. 60, 62.

Alaska:

“Degree of injury required under interest-injury standing need not be great; an “identifiable trifle” is said to suffice to fight out a question of principal.”  Alaskans for a Common Language, Inc. v. Kritz, 3 P.3d 906 (Alaska 2000).

“State courts grant standing to any person who can show injury-in-fact.”  In re Dissolution of Marriage of Alaback, 997 P.2d 1181.

“the duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it.”  Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 405, 21 SCt. 206, 208.

 

Arizona:

“All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”  Arizona constitution article II § 2.

“it is declared that the public policy of this state and the general purposes of the provisions of this title [criminal code title 13] are: 1. To proscribe conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably causes or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests.”  Arizona criminal code § 13-101 .

“Two elements comprise the corpus delecti of a crime: (1) the basic injury…(2) the fact that the basic injury was the result of a criminal, rather than a natural or accidental, cause.  State v. Thomas, 78 Ariz. 52, 59, 275 P.2d 408, 413 (1954).”  State v. Atwood, 832 P.2d 593, 614, 171 Ariz. 576.

“In Arizona, both “but for” causation and proximate cause must be established in a criminal case.”  State v. Marty, 801 P.2d 468, 471, 166 Ariz. 233.

“If such preliminary proof has been submitted the confession or statements may then be used to assist in proving the corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt, the degree necessary for conviction.”  State v. Hernandez, 320 P.2d 476, 469, 83 Ariz. 279.

“In order to establish corpus delecti, state must prove that a certain result has been produced and that someone is criminally responsible for that result.”  State v. Gerlaugh, 654 P.2d 800, 134 Ariz. 164.

“To establish corpus delecti, there must be some proof that a certain result has been produced and that someone is criminally responsible for the act.”  State v. Pineda, 519 P.2d 41, 100 Ariz. 342.

““Corpus delecti” of a crime is established by showing proof of result and that some one is criminally responsible therefore.”  State v. Flores, 454 P.2d 172, 9 Ariz.App. 502.

““Corpus delecti” has as its two elements that a certain result has been produced and that some person is criminally responsible for the act.”  State v. Wilson, 548 P.2d 23, 113 Ariz. 145.
“In Sears, we denied standing to citizens seeking relief against the governor because they failed to plead and prove palpable injury personal to themselves.”  Bennet v. Napolitano, 81 P3d 311, 315.

“To gain standing to bring an action, a plaintiff must allege a distinct and palpable injury.  Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501.”  Sears v. Hull, 961 P.2d 1013, 1017 (1998).

“To gain standing to bring an action, a plaintiff must allege a distinct and palpable injury.”  Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., 108 P.3d 917.

Arkansas:

“It is a fundamental principal that the courts are instituted to afford relief to persons whose rights have been invaded…by the defendant’s conduct…a court may and properly should refuse to entertain an action at the instance of one whose rights have not been invaded or infringed, as where he seeks to invoke a remedy in behalf of another who seeks no redress.”  Jag Consulting v. Eubanks, 72 S.W.3d 549 556.

“the duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it.”  Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 405, 21 SCt. 206, 208.

California:

“In every prosecution for crime it is necessary to establish the “corpus delecti”, i.e., the body or elements of the crime.”  People v. Lopez, 62 Ca.Rptr. 47, 254 C.A.2d 185.

“In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime itself-i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause.”  People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.].

“Elements of “corpus delecti,” injury or loss or harm and a criminal agency which causes such injury, loss or harm, need only be proven by a “reasonable probability,” i.e., by slight or prima facie proof…”  People v. Ramirez, 153 Cal.Rptr. 789, 791, 91 C.A. 132.

““Corpus delecti” of crime consists of fact of injury, loss, or harm, and existence of criminal agency as cause.”  People v. Daly, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 21, 28, 8 CA4th 47.

“Generally, “corpus delecti” of crime is (1) the fact of the loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause.”  People v. Dorsey, 118 Cal.Rptr. 362, 43 CA3d 953.

“There is no requirement of independent evidence ‘of every physical act constituting an element of an offense,’ so long as there is some slight or prima facie showing of injury, loss, or harm by a criminal agency.”  In re I.M., 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 375, 381 (2005).

“The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements[:] the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause.”  People v. Jones, 949 P.2d 890, 902, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 793, 17 Cal.4th 279.

“The corpus delecti rule requires that the corpus delecti or the body or substance of the crime charged be proved independent from the accused’s extrajudicial confession or admissions.  The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements: (1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. [citing] People v Jennings, 53 Cal 3d 334, 279 Cal Rptr 780, 807 P2d 1009, 92 CDOS 2576, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4222, reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 464, 112 S Ct 443…People v Pensinger, 52 Cal 3d 1210, 278 Cal Rptr 640, 805 P2d 899, 91 CDOS 1514, 91 Daily Journal DAR 2504, mod 53 Cal 3d 729a, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4745 and stay gr (Cal) 1991 Cal LEXIS 3318 and reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 290, 112 S Ct 351, 91 Daily Journal DAR 12909, reh den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 821, 112 S Ct 923; State v Pullos, 76 Idaho 369, 283 P2d 590; People v Friedland (1st Dist) 202 Ill App 3d 1094, 148 Ill Dec 415, 560 NE2d 1012; Brown v State, 239 Ind 184, 154 NE2d 720, cert den 361 US 936, 4 L Ed 2d 360, 80 S Ct 375; Joseph v State, 236 Ind 529, 141 NE2d 109, 69 ALR2d 824, cert dism 359 US 117, 3 L Ed 2d 673, 79 S Ct 720; People v Aiken, 66 Mich 460, 33 NW 821; People v Gould, 156 Mich App 413, 402 NW2d 27; State v Simler, 350 Mo 646, 167 SW2d 376; State v Hill, 47 NJ 490, 221 A2d 725; State v Robinson (App. Scioto Co) 83 Ohio L Abs 259, 168 NE2d 328; State v Brown, 103 SC 437, 88 SE 21…there must be sufficient proof of both elements of the corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt.”  29A American Jurisprudence Second Ed., Evidence § 1476.

“Without standing, there is no actual or justiciable controversy, and courts will not entertain such cases.  (3 Witlen, Cal. Procedure (3rd ed. 1985) Actions § 44, pp 70-72.)  “Typically, … the standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint’s allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claims asserted.”  (Allen v. Wright, (1984) 468 U.S. 737, 752…Whether one has standing in a particular case generally revolved around the question whether that person has rights that may suffer some injury, actual or threatened.”  Clifford S. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 333, 335.

“As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury.”  People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793.

“Judicial power generally is the power to adjudicate upon the legal rights of persons and property, with reference to transactions or occurrences existing or already had and closed…The judicial function is to ‘declare the law and define the rights of the parties under it.’  Frasher v. Rader, 124 Cal. 133, 56 P. 797…’A determination of the rights of an individual under the existing laws’ is an exercise of judicial power…An essential element of judicial power, distinguishing it from legislative power, is that it requires “the ascertainment of existing rights.”  People v. Bird, 300 P. 22, 26-27.
Colorado:

“the corpus delecti of a crime minimally requires two elements: “(1) An injury which is penally proscribed…and (2) The unlawfulness of some person’s conduct in causing that injury.”  People of the State of Colorado v. Smith, 510 P.2d 893, 182 Colo. 31.

“Generally, to subject a person to criminal liability, there must be concurrence of the actus reus, an unlawful act, and the mens rea, a culpable mental state.”  Gorman v. State, 19 P.3d 662.

“The corpus delecti ordinarily consists of a penally proscribed injury…and unlawful conduct causing the injury.”  People v. Trujillo, 860 P.2d 542, 545.

“The corpus delecti, or the fact that a crime occurred, must be proved in every case.”  People v. Quinn, 794 P.2d 1066, 1068.

“Properly understood the general principle is sound, for courts only adjudicate justiciable controversies… courts must look behind names that symbolize the parties to determine whether a justiciable case or controversy is presented.”  Friedrichs v. Goldy, 387 P.2d 274, 277 [quoting United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 U.S. 426 (1949]).

“The Wimberly standing inquiry requires a court to determine “(1) whether the plaintiff was injured in fact, [and] (2) whether the injury was to a legally protected right.”  Wimberly, 194 Colo. at 168…The first prong of the standing test is a constitutional requirement since the judicial power granted “by article VI of the Colorado constitution may be exercised only if an actual controversy exists, as demonstrated by real injury…The second standing requirement, that the injury be to a legally protected right…”  Maurer v. Young Life, 779 P.2d 1317.

“The judicial power of the state shall be vested in a supreme court, district courts, a probate court in the city and county of Denver, a juvenile court in the city and county of Denver, county courts, and such other courts or judicial officers with jurisdiction inferior to the supreme court, as the general assembly may, from time to time establish; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to restrict or diminish the powers of home rule cities and towns granted under article XX, section 6 of this constitution to create municipal and police courts.”  Colorado constitution, article VI, section 1.

[Notice there is no distinction regarding criminal and civil jurisdictions, the "judicial power" comprehends both criminal and civil and each require a "real injury...to a...protected right..."]

“Parties have standing if: (1) they have suffered an injury in fact; and (2) the harm is to a legally protected interest.”  Garhart ex rel. Tinsman v. Columbia/Hathone, LLC., 95 P.3d 571.

“A plaintiff has standing if he incurred an injury in fact-in-fact to a legally protected interest, as comtemplated by statutory or constitutional provisions.”  Brotman v. East Lake Creek Ranch, LLP., 31 P.3d 886.

“the legislature did not deprive the courts of judicial power which may be defined as the machinery by which persons have their rights determined…”  Denver Local Union No. 13, etc. v. Perry Truck Lines, 101 P.2d 436, 447.

“the duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it.”  Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 405, 21 SCt. 206, 208.

Connecticut:

““Corpus delecti” consists of occurrence of specific kind of loss or injury embraced in crime charged, rather than commission of crime charged by someone.”  State v. Vuilleumer, 210 A.2d 673, 674, 3 Conn.Cir. 223.

“Under the Wigmore definition, the corpus delecti consists of the occurrence of the specific loss or injury embraced in the crime charged.  We adopt this definition.”  State v. Tillman, 202 A.2d 494, 496.

“Cause of action is that single group of facts which is claimed to have brought about unlawful injury to plaintiff and which entitles plaintiff to relief.”  Gurliacci v. Mayer, 590 A.2d 914 (Conn. 1991).

“Standing is the legal right to set judicial machinery in motion.  One cannot rightfully invoke the jurisdiction of the court unless he [or she] has, in an individual or representative capacity, some real interest in the cause of action, or a legal or equitable right, title or interest in the subject matter of the controversy…”  West Farms Mall, LLC v. West Hartford, 901 A.2d 649, 655-656 (Conn. 2006).

“If a party is found to lack standing, the court is without subject matter jurisdiction to determine the cause…[A] court lacks discretion to consider the merits of a case over which it is without jurisdiction…”  Missionary Soc. v. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 896 A.2d 809, 812 (Conn. 2006).

“Once the question of subject matter jurisdiction has been raised, cognizance of it must be taken and the matter passed upon before [the court] can move one further step in the cause…We accordingly address this issue, the question is whether the person who standing is challenged is a proper party to request an adjudication of the issue…Standing requires no more than a colorable claim of injury; a [party] ordinarily establishes standing by allegations of injury.”  Wesley v. Schaller Subaru, Inc., 893 A.2d 389, 397 (Conn. 2006).

“If a party is found to lack standing, the court is wihtout subject matter jurisdiction to determine the cause.”  Cadle Co. v. D’Addario, 844 A.2d 836.

“The general rule is that one party has no standing to raise another’s rights.”  Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Lumbermens Mut. Ca. Co., 826 A.2d 107.

“A party cannot rightfully invoke the jurisdiction of the court unless he has, in an individual or representative capacity, some real interest in the cause of action, or a legal or equitable right, title or interest inthe subject matter of the controversy.  The burden rests with the party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and, has standing.”  Goodyear v. Discala, 849 A.2d 791.

“Evidentiary hearings should not and will not be granted on vague conclusional charges…”  De Baca v. District Court, 431 P.2d 763 (1967).

Delaware:

“Though questioned by Wigmore, the prevailing American rule is that proof of the corpus delecti requires (1) proof of the injury, death or loss, according to the nature of the crime, and (2) proof of criminal means as the cause.  7 Wigmore on Evidence, [section] 2072.  This is the rule in Delaware.”  Nelson v. State, 123 A.2d 859, 861.

“In criminal prosecutions, the State need only show a “but for” relationship between an action and a result to establish causation.”  Bolluck v. State, 775 A.2d 1043, 1049 (2001.

“The party invoking the jurisdiction of a court bears the burden of establishing the elements of standing. The degree and manner of evidence that is required to establish standing varies as the successive of any litigation proceeds.  At the pleading stage, general allegations of injury are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss…When a motion for summary judgment is filed however, the plaintiff can no longer rest on such “mere allegations.” … The term “standing” refers to the right of a party to invoke the jurisdiction of a court to enforce a claim or to redress a grievance.  Standing is a threshold question that must be answered by a court affirmatively to ensure that the litigation before the tribunal is a “case or controversy” that is appropriate for the exercise of the court’s judicial powers.  The issue of standing is concerned “only with the question of who is entitled to mount a legal challenge and not with the merits of the subject matter in controversy.”  To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate first, that he or she sustained an “injury-in-fact”; and second, that the interests he or she seeks to be protected are within the zone of interests to be protected.”  Dover Hist. Soc. v. Dover Planning Com’n., 838 A.2d 1103, 1109-1110 ( Del.2003).

Florida:

“Causation consists of two distinct subelements.  As legal scholars have recognized, before a defendant can be convicted of a crime that includes an element of causation, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s conduct was (1) the “cause in fact” and (2) the “legal cause” (often called “proximate cause”) of the relevant harm…In order to establish that a defendant’s conduct was the “cause in fact” of a particular harm, the State usually must demonstrate that “but for” the defendant’s conduct, the harm would not have occurred.”  Eversly v. State, 748 So.2d 963, 966-967 (Fla. 1999).

“”A Cause of action is some particular legal right of plaintiff against defendant, together with some definite violation thereof which occasions loss or damage.”  Luckie v. McCall Manufacturing Co., 152 So.2d 311, 314…”  Soowal v. Marden, 452 So.2d 625, 626.

“It is a fundamental principle of law that no person be adjudged guilty of a crime until the state has shown that a crime has been committed.  The state therefore must show that a harm has been suffered of the type contemplated by the charges (for example, a death in the case of a murder charge or a loss of property in the case of a theft charge), and that such harm was incurred due to the criminal agency of another.  Thus, it is sufficient if the elements of the underlying crime are proven rather than those of the particular degree or variation of that crime which may be charged.”  State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823,825 (Fla. 1976).

“A party has standing when he or she has a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy.  Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 731…To establish standing it must be shown that the party suffered injury in fact (economic or otherwise) for which relief is likely to be addressed.  See Warth v. Seldin , 422 U.S. 490, 501…it may not be abstract, conjectural or hypothetical.  Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 791…”  Peregard v. Cosmides, 663 So.2d 665, 668.

“A litigant must assert his or her own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third paries.”  Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Estate of Shelley, 827 So.2d 936.

“Generally, to have standing to bring an action the plaintiff must allege that he has suffered or will suffer a special injury.”  Alachua County v. Scharps, 855 So.2d 195.

Georgia:

“In defining ‘corpus delecti’ Wharton says: ‘It is made up of two elements: (1) That a certain result has been produced…(2) That some one is criminally responsible for the result…”  McVeigh v. State, 53 S.E.2d 462, 469.

“A cause of action is some particular right of the plaintiff against the defendant, together with some definite violation of that right which occasions damage, whether the right arises by contract or tort.  Ellison v. Ga. R. Co., 87 Ga. 691, 13 S.E. 809 (1891); City of Columbus v. Anglin. 120 Ga. 785(4), 48 S.E. 318 (1904).  It may also be defined from the standpoint of duties, provided the complainant has proven a duty owed by the defendant to him, and a breach of that duty shown which results in loss to the complainant. Ellison v. Ga. R. Co., supra.  There can be no right of action until there has been a wrong, that is, a violation of a legal right or breach of a legal duty…”  Bryant v. Randall, 261 S.E.2d 602, 605-606.

“Particular remedy is not available to party who has no entitlement to right sought to be secured.”  Ragsdale v. New England Land and Development Corp., 297 S.E.2d 31.

“Standing deals with question of whether party may assert right even presuming it exists.”  Nationwide Mortg. Resources, Inc. v. Stalzer, 455 S.E.2d 402.

Hawaii:

“In order to prove that a crime occurred, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the basic injury …, (2) the fact that the basic injury was the result of a criminal, rather than a natural or accidental cause…”  State v. Libero, 83 P.3d 753, 763 (2003), [quoting State v. Dudoit, 55 Haw. 1, 2, 514 P.2d 373, 374 (1973)].

““Corpus delecti” of any particular crime means actual commission of crime by someone and it made up of two elements; that is, certain result has been produced and some person is criminally responsible for the act.”  State v. Hale, 367 P.2d 81, 85, 45 Haw. 269.

“Plaintiff without standing is not entitled to invoke a court’s jurisdiction.”  Mottle v. Miyahira, 23 P.3d 716.

“Petitioner must satisfy all three prongs of the three-part “injury-in-fact” test to establish its standing.”  Sierra Club v. Hawai’I Tourism Authority ex rel Board of Directors, 59 P.3d 877.

Idaho:

“To prove a crime generally, the state must provide evidence of three broad elements: (1) that an injury occurred; (2) that criminal agency was involved in causing the injury; and (3) the identity of the person who caused the injury…Historically, under the standard formulations of the corpus delicti principle, the state was required to show the “body” of a crime by establishing the first two elements of a crime- -the injury and the criminal agency- -independently from a defendant’s confession.  [citing State v. Urie, 92 Idaho 71, 437 P.2d 24.]  State v. Thomas, No 33356, decided Feb 2008, Idaho court of appeals.

“The corpus delecti rule requires that the corpus delecti or the body or substance of the crime charged be proved independent from the accused’s extrajudicial confession or admissions.  The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements: (1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. [citing] People v Jennings, 53 Cal 3d 334, 279 Cal Rptr 780, 807 P2d 1009, 92 CDOS 2576, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4222, reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 464, 112 S Ct 443…People v Pensinger, 52 Cal 3d 1210, 278 Cal Rptr 640, 805 P2d 899, 91 CDOS 1514, 91 Daily Journal DAR 2504, mod 53 Cal 3d 729a, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4745 and stay gr (Cal) 1991 Cal LEXIS 3318 and reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 290, 112 S Ct 351, 91 Daily Journal DAR 12909, reh den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 821, 112 S Ct 923; State v Pullos, 76 Idaho 369, 283 P2d 590; People v Friedland (1st Dist) 202 Ill App 3d 1094, 148 Ill Dec 415, 560 NE2d 1012; Brown v State, 239 Ind 184, 154 NE2d 720, cert den 361 US 936, 4 L Ed 2d 360, 80 S Ct 375; Joseph v State, 236 Ind 529, 141 NE2d 109, 69 ALR2d 824, cert dism 359 US 117, 3 L Ed 2d 673, 79 S Ct 720; People v Aiken, 66 Mich 460, 33 NW 821; People v Gould, 156 Mich App 413, 402 NW2d 27; State v Simler, 350 Mo 646, 167 SW2d 376; State v Hill, 47 NJ 490, 221 A2d 725; State v Robinson (App. Scioto Co) 83 Ohio L Abs 259, 168 NE2d 328; State v Brown, 103 SC 437, 88 SE 21…there must be sufficient proof of both elements of the corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt.”  29A American Jurisprudence Second Ed., Evidence § 1476.

“In Miles v. Idaho Power Co, 116 Idaho 635, 778 P.2d 757 (1989), the court stated three basic propositions concerning standing that guide our decision here: 1. “The doctrine of standing focuses on the party seeking relief and not on the issues the party wishes to have adjudicated.” 2. “[T]o satisfy the case or controversy requirement of standing, litigants generally must allege or demonstrate an injury in fact and a substantial likelihood that the judicial relief requested will prevent or redress the claimed injury.”  Boundary Backpackers v. Boundary County, 913 P.2d 1141, 1145.

“Person wishing to invoke a court’s jurisdiction must have standing…Doctrine of standing focuses on the party seeking relief and not on the issues the party wishes to have adjudicated…To satisfy the requirement of standing, the petitioners must allege or demonstrate an injury in fact and a substantial likelihood that the judicial relief requested will prevent or redress the claimed injury.”  Schneider v. Howe, 133 P.3d 1232.

“The issue of standing is jurisdictional and may be raised at any time.”  Beach lateral Water Users Ass’n v. Harrison, 130 P.3d 1138.

“The doctrine of standing focuses on the party seeking relief and not the issues the party wishes to have adjudicated.”  Troutner v. Kempthorn, 128 P.3d 926.

“Standing is a fundamental prerequisite to invoking a court’s jurisdiction.”  Noh v. Cenarrusa, 53 P.3d 1217.

Illinois:

“Occurrence of injury or loss, and its causation by criminal conduct, are termed the “corpus delecti.”  People v. Assenato, 586 N.E.2d 445, 448, 166 Ill.Dec. 487, 490.

““Corpus delecti” of an offence consists of fact that injury occurred and fact that injury was caused by a criminal act.”  People v. Lewis, 498 N.E.2d 1169, 1174, 101 Ill.Dec. 661, 666.

“It is elementary that the corpus delecti constitutes an essential element of a criminal prosecution…”  People v. O’Neil, 165 N.E.2d 319, 320.

“Rather, we understand the rule to be that the corpus delecti, like every essential element of a criminal case, must be proved by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.”  People v. Jones, 177 N.E.2d 112, 114.

“The corpus delecti rule requires that the corpus delecti or the body or substance of the crime charged be proved independent from the accused’s extrajudicial confession or admissions.  The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements: (1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. [citing] People v Jennings, 53 Cal 3d 334, 279 Cal Rptr 780, 807 P2d 1009, 92 CDOS 2576, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4222, reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 464, 112 S Ct 443…People v Pensinger, 52 Cal 3d 1210, 278 Cal Rptr 640, 805 P2d 899, 91 CDOS 1514, 91 Daily Journal DAR 2504, mod 53 Cal 3d 729a, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4745 and stay gr (Cal) 1991 Cal LEXIS 3318 and reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 290, 112 S Ct 351, 91 Daily Journal DAR 12909, reh den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 821, 112 S Ct 923; State v Pullos, 76 Idaho 369, 283 P2d 590; People v Friedland (1st Dist) 202 Ill App 3d 1094, 148 Ill Dec 415, 560 NE2d 1012; Brown v State, 239 Ind 184, 154 NE2d 720, cert den 361 US 936, 4 L Ed 2d 360, 80 S Ct 375; Joseph v State, 236 Ind 529, 141 NE2d 109, 69 ALR2d 824, cert dism 359 US 117, 3 L Ed 2d 673, 79 S Ct 720; People v Aiken, 66 Mich 460, 33 NW 821; People v Gould, 156 Mich App 413, 402 NW2d 27; State v Simler, 350 Mo 646, 167 SW2d 376; State v Hill, 47 NJ 490, 221 A2d 725; State v Robinson (App. Scioto Co) 83 Ohio L Abs 259, 168 NE2d 328; State v Brown, 103 SC 437, 88 SE 21…there must be sufficient proof of both elements of the corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt.”  29A American Jurisprudence Second Ed., Evidence § 1476.

“In Illinois, standing requires only some injury in fact to a legally cognizable interest and the injury, whether actual or threatened, must be distinct and palpable, fairly traceable to the defendant’s actions, and substantially likely to be prevented or redressed by the…relief requested.”  In re D.W., 799 N.E.2d 410.

“Standing requries only some injury in fact to a legally cognizable interest.”   In re County Treasurer and Ex Officio County Collector of Cook County, 775 N.E.2d 86.

“This court has repeatedly held that standing requires some injury in fact to a legally recognized interest.”  In re Estate of Wellman, 673 N.E.2d 272, 276 (Ill. 1996).

“The definition of judicial power given by Judge Cooley in his work on Constiutional Limitations, held by this court to be sufficiently accurate  for the purposes of the question then before the court, which was in substance the same as that now under consideration, is as follows: “The power which adjudicates upon and protects the rights and interests of individual citizens, and to that end construes and applies the laws.”  Owners of Lands v. People, 113 Ill. 309.”  People v. Chase, 46 N.E. 454, 458.  Also quoted in People v. Bruner, 175 N.E. 400, 404

“”Judicial power” implies the construction of laws and the adjudication of legal rights…[note 6] No law is construed by the board, and no legal rights are submitted to and adjudicated by it, without which, we have seen, judicial power is not exercised.”  People v. Appelbaum, 95 N.E. 995, 997.

“Judicial power is the power which adjudicates upon the rights of citizens, and to that end construes and applies the law.”  People v. Hawkinson, 155 N.E. 318, 319.

Indiana:

“Corpus delecti consists of a showing of “1) the occurrence of the specific kind of injury and 2) someone’s criminal act as the cause of the injury.””  Johnson v. State, 653 N.E.2d 478, 479 (Ind. 1995).

“State must produce corroborating evidence of “corpus delecti,” showing that injury or harm constituting crime occurred and that injury or harm was caused by someone’s criminal activity.”  Jorgensen v. State, 567 N.E.2d 113, 121.

“To establish the corpus delecti, independent evidence must be presented showing the occurrence of a specific kind of injury and that a criminal act was the cause of the injury.”  Porter v. State, 391 N.E.2d 801, 808-809.

“The corpus delecti rule requires that the corpus delecti or the body or substance of the crime charged be proved independent from the accused’s extrajudicial confession or admissions.  The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements: (1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. [citing] People v Jennings, 53 Cal 3d 334, 279 Cal Rptr 780, 807 P2d 1009, 92 CDOS 2576, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4222, reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 464, 112 S Ct 443…People v Pensinger, 52 Cal 3d 1210, 278 Cal Rptr 640, 805 P2d 899, 91 CDOS 1514, 91 Daily Journal DAR 2504, mod 53 Cal 3d 729a, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4745 and stay gr (Cal) 1991 Cal LEXIS 3318 and reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 290, 112 S Ct 351, 91 Daily Journal DAR 12909, reh den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 821, 112 S Ct 923; State v Pullos, 76 Idaho 369, 283 P2d 590; People v Friedland (1st Dist) 202 Ill App 3d 1094, 148 Ill Dec 415, 560 NE2d 1012; Brown v State, 239 Ind 184, 154 NE2d 720, cert den 361 US 936, 4 L Ed 2d 360, 80 S Ct 375; Joseph v State, 236 Ind 529, 141 NE2d 109, 69 ALR2d 824, cert dism 359 US 117, 3 L Ed 2d 673, 79 S Ct 720; People v Aiken, 66 Mich 460, 33 NW 821; People v Gould, 156 Mich App 413, 402 NW2d 27; State v Simler, 350 Mo 646, 167 SW2d 376; State v Hill, 47 NJ 490, 221 A2d 725; State v Robinson (App. Scioto Co) 83 Ohio L Abs 259, 168 NE2d 328; State v Brown, 103 SC 437, 88 SE 21…there must be sufficient proof of both elements of the corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt.”  29A American Jurisprudence Second Ed., Evidence § 1476.

“The distinction between torts and crimes is based upon the public nature of the criminal offense.  “Although the same act may constitute both a crime and a tort, the crime is an offense against the public pursued by the sovereign, while the tort is a private injury which is pursued by the injured party.”  14 Am.Jur. 755, [section] 3.  The same distinction has been noted by another authority in the following language:  “The real distinction between a tort and a crime is to be sought for, not in a difference between their tendencies, but in the difference between the methods by which the remedy for the wrong is pursued, a wrong for which the remedy is pursued by and at the discretion of the individual injured or his representative being a tort, and a wrong for which the wrongdoer is proceeded against by the sovereign or state for the purpose of punishment being a crime.”  State v. White Circuit Court, 77 N.E.2d 298, 300-301.

“Standing is a fundamental, threshold, constitutional issue that must be addressed by this, or any, court to determine if it should exercise jurisdiction in the particular case before it.  The issue of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper one to invoke the court’s power.  Scott v. Randell, 736 N.E.2d 308 (Ind.Ct.App.2000)…To establish standing, therefore, a plaintiff must demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit and that the injury is a result of the defendant’s conduct [citation omitted].  If properly challenged, when a plaintiff fails to establish standing in the pleadings, the court must dismiss the complaint.  Shulz v. State, 731 N.E.2d 1041.  Moreover:

Although the Indiana constitution contains no “case or controversy” requirement, the federal limits on justiciability are instructing because the standing requirement under both federal and state constitutional law fulfills the same purpose; ensuring that the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of the particular issues.  Id. at 1044.  Under the federal test, to establish standing a plaintiff must allege a personal injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and is likely to be redressed by the requested relief.  Id. citing Allen v. Wright, 768 U.S. 737…”  Alexander v. PSB Lending Corp, 800 N.E.2d 984, 989.

“Under the general rule of standing, only those persons who have a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation and who show that they have suffered or were in immediate danger of suffering a direct injury as a result of the complained-of conduct will be found to have standing; absent this showing, complainants may not invoke the jurisdiction of the court.”  State ex rel Citidine v. Indiana Dept. of Trans.,790 N.E.2d 978.

Iowa:

While the corpus delecti must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, yet it may be established by circumstantial as well as direct evidence.  State v. Wescott, 104 N.W. 341, 130 Iowa 1; State v. Kelly, 186 N.W. 834, 193 Iowa 62.

“The principals of causation normally associated with civil tort litigation are pertinent in criminal cases.  State v. Murray, 512 N.W.2d 547, 550 (Iowa 1994).”  State v. Garcia, 616 N.W.2d 594, 596 (Iowa 2000).

“In order for there to be a “right of action” or “cause of action,” there must be a legal right in plaintiff corresponding duty on part of the defendant and attendant breach of that duty with resultant harm to plaintiff…”  Giltner v. Stark, 252 N.W.2d 743.

“To have standing, complaining party must have specific, personal, and legal interest in the litigation and be injuriously affected.”  In re Marriage of Mitchell, 531 N.W.2d 132.

“one should bear in mind the fundamental principal that courts are instituted to afford relief to persons whose rights have been invaded, or are threatened with invasion by the defendant’s act or conduct…”  Bowers v. Bailey, 21 N.W.2d 773, 776.

“Corpus delecti is made up of two element: (1) a result has been produced…(2) some one is criminally responsible for the result.”  State v. Stamper, 195 N.W.2d 110, 112-113.

“In our opinion, the term [corpus delecti] means, when applied to any particular offense, that the particular crime charged has actually been committed by some one.  It is made up of two elements: First, that a certain result has been produced…second, that some one is criminally responsible for the result.”  State v. Whisler, 3 N.W.2d 525, 528.

Kansas:

“We first note that standing is a jurisdictional issue in Kansas…As a result, standing is not waivable.”  Midcontinental Specialists v. Capital Homes, 106 P.3d 483.

“Standing is a question of whether the plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in he outcome of a controversy as to warrant invocation of jurisdiction and to justify  exercise of the courts’ remedial powers on his behalf…The party must have personally suffered some injury and there must be a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct.”  Moorhouse v. City of Wichta, 913 P.2d 172, 176.

“Generally, “standing” requires that a plaintiff have a personal interest in the court’s decision, and that he or she personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of a putatively illegal conduct of the defendant.”  Lower v. Bd. of Directors of Haskell County Cemetary Dist., 56 P.3d 235.

“Standing is a jurisdictional issue.”  Nichols v. Kansas Governmental Ethics Com’n., 18 P.3d 270.

“It is the primary duty of the courts to safeguard the declaration of right and remedy guaranteed by the constitutional provision insuring a remedy for all injuries.”  Noel v. Menninger Foundation, 267 P.2d 934, 943.

Kentucky:

“Before a party can have a controversy judicially determined, he must have an interest in the subject matter…Generally, a defect in parties or objections based upon the absence of a legal right to maintain an action should be raised by a demurrer, plea in abatement or in bar.”  Thompson-Starrett Co. v. Mason’s Adm’rs., 201 S.W.2d 786, 883.

Louisiana:

All government, of right, originates with the people, is founded on their will alone, and is instituted to protect the rights of the individual and for the good of the whole. Its only legitimate ends are to secure justice for all, preserve peace, protect the rights, and promote the happiness and general welfare of the people. The rights enumerated in this Article are inalienable by the state and shall be preserved inviolate by the state. ”  Article I § 1, Louisiana constitution.

““Corpus delecti,” the body or substance of a crime, is composed of two elements: occurrence of an unlawful injury, and illegal conduct causing that injury.”  State v. Outlaw, 485 So.2d 217, 221.

“Corpus delecti, the body or substance of a crime, has two elements: (1) an unlawful injury has occurred; and (2) some person’s illegal conduct caused that injury.”  State v. Reed, 420 So.2d 950, 951.

Maine:

“The United States Supreme Court as stated that standing requires one who as suffered an injury to show that the injury in fact is fairly traceable to the challenged action and that such injury is likely to be redressed by the judicial relief sought.   Allen v. Wright , 468 U.S. 737…We have previously held that to have standing a litigant must have suffered a particularized injury that is distinct from the harm suffered by the public at large…We have construed particularized injury as an injury resulting from an action adversely and directly affecting the party’s property, pecuniary or personal rights.  New England Herald Dev. Group v. Town of Falmouth, 521 A.2d 693, 695 (Me. 1987).”  Proctor v. County of Penobscot, 651 A.2d 355, 357.

You’ll notice that the attorney for the County wrote: a plaintiff “generally must assert his own legal rights and interest and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interest of third parties.”  Also at page 357.

“The requirement for standing that a party suffer an injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged action is met when a defendant’s actions have adversely affected and directly affected the party’s property, pecuniary or personal rights.”  Collins v. State, 750 A.2d 1257, 1260.

Maryland:

“While the corpus delecti must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt…it may be established by circumstantial evidence…”  James v. State, 248 A.2d 910, 912.

“Properly understood the general principle is sound, for courts only adjudicate justiciable controversies… courts must look behind names that symbolize the parties to determine whether a justiciable case or controversy is presented.”  Blind Industries v. D.G.S., 808 A.2d 782, 784 (Md. 2002) [quoting United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 U.S. 426 (1949)].

“We have said clearly that, to determine when a cause of action accrues under the LGTCA notice provision, we “must examine the elements of the cause of action”—for, under our precedents, “a cause of action is said to have arisen when facts exist to support each element,” including injury. Heron, 361 Md. at 264, 761 A.2d at 59.”  Prince George’s Cnt, Maryland, et al. v. Keith Longtin, http://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-appeals/1564702.html

“In Adamson v. Corr. Med. Servs., 359 Md. 238, 753 A.2d 501 (2000), this Court stated:

In reviewing the underlying grant of a motion to dismiss, we must assume the truth of the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint, including the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those allegations. We have noted that “the facts comprising the cause of action must be pleaded with sufficient specificity. Bald assertions and conclusory statements by the pleader will not suffice.” Ruffin Hotel Corp. of Maryland INC v. Gasper http://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-appeals/1560264.html

Massachusetts:

“The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government is to secure the existence of the body-politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying, in safety and tranquillity, their natural rights and the blessings of life…”  Preamble, Massachusetts Constitution 1780, still in current constitution .

“Criminal responsibility is imposed on the basis of the intentional doing of an act with awareness of the probability that the act will result in substantial damage, regardless of whether the injury turns out to be minor or insignificant.”  Com. v. Ruddock, 520 N.E.2d 501.

“The issue of standing may be raised at any time.”  In re Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc., 746 N.E.2d 513.

“To have standing in any capacity, a litigant must show that the challenged action has caused litigant injury.”  Perella v. Massachusetts Turpike Auth., 772 N.E.2d 70.

“Courts are not established to enable parties to litigate in which they have no interest affecting their liberty, rights or property.”  Razin v. Razin, 124 N.E.2d 269, 270.

Michigan:

“Lack of license to carry a concealed weapon established that crime had been committed and therefore was part of the “corpus delecti.”  People v. Autry, 152 N.W.2d 55, 56, 7 Mich.App.480.

““Corpus delecti” includes fact of specific loss or injury and someone’s criminality.”  People v. Randall, 201 N.W.2d 292, 293, 42 Mich.App. 187.

““Corpus delecti,” meaning body or substance of crime charged, involves two elements: injury which is penally proscribed and unlawfulness of some person’s conduct in causing injury.”  People v. Swift, 470 N.W.2d 491, 492, 188 Mich.App. 619.

“For there to be criminal responsibility, defendant’s acts must have caused harm.”  People v. Zak, 457 N.W.2d 59.
“The corpus delecti rule requires that the corpus delecti or the body or substance of the crime charged be proved independent from the accused’s extrajudicial confession or admissions.  The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements: (1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. [citing] People v Jennings, 53 Cal 3d 334, 279 Cal Rptr 780, 807 P2d 1009, 92 CDOS 2576, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4222, reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 464, 112 S Ct 443…People v Pensinger, 52 Cal 3d 1210, 278 Cal Rptr 640, 805 P2d 899, 91 CDOS 1514, 91 Daily Journal DAR 2504, mod 53 Cal 3d 729a, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4745 and stay gr (Cal) 1991 Cal LEXIS 3318 and reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 290, 112 S Ct 351, 91 Daily Journal DAR 12909, reh den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 821, 112 S Ct 923; State v Pullos, 76 Idaho 369, 283 P2d 590; People v Friedland (1st Dist) 202 Ill App 3d 1094, 148 Ill Dec 415, 560 NE2d 1012; Brown v State, 239 Ind 184, 154 NE2d 720, cert den 361 US 936, 4 L Ed 2d 360, 80 S Ct 375; Joseph v State, 236 Ind 529, 141 NE2d 109, 69 ALR2d 824, cert dism 359 US 117, 3 L Ed 2d 673, 79 S Ct 720; People v Aiken, 66 Mich 460, 33 NW 821; People v Gould, 156 Mich App 413, 402 NW2d 27; State v Simler, 350 Mo 646, 167 SW2d 376; State v Hill, 47 NJ 490, 221 A2d 725; State v Robinson (App. Scioto Co) 83 Ohio L Abs 259, 168 NE2d 328; State v Brown, 103 SC 437, 88 SE 21…there must be sufficient proof of both elements of the corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt.”  29A American Jurisprudence Second Ed., Evidence § 1476.

“Although the same act may constitute both a crime and a tort, the crime is an offense against the public pursued by the sovereign, while the tort is a private injury which is pursued by the injured party.”  People v. Veenstra, 60 N.W.2d 309, 310-311.

“Standing relates to civil as well as criminal matters.”  People v. Smith, 360 N.W.2d 841, 844-845 (Mich. 1984).

“In order to have standing, a party must have a legally protected interest that is in jeopardy of being adversely affected.”  In re Foster, 573 N.W.2d 324, 328.

“Plaintiff must assert his own legal rights and interests and cannot rest his claim to relief on legal rights or interests of third parties.”  Fieger v. Commissioner of Ins., 437 N.W.2d 271.

“To adjudicate upon and protect the rights and interests of individual citizens, and to that end to construe and apply the laws, is the peculiar province of the judicial department…The primary functions of the judiciary are to declare what the law is and to determine the rights of parties conformably thereto.”  Johnson v. Kramer Bros. Freight Lines, Inc., 98 N.W.2d 586, 588.

Minnesota:

“OBJECT OF GOVERNMENT. Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify or reform government whenever required by the public good.”  Minnesota constitution Article I § 1.

JUDICIAL POWER…Power that adjudicates upon and protects the rights and interests of persons or property, and to that end declares, construes and applies the law, In re Hungstiger, 130 Minn. 474, 153 N.W. 869, 870; People ex rel. Rusch v. White 334 Ill. 465, 166 N.E. 100, 106, 64 A.L.R. 1006; In re Assessment of Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 168 Okl. 495, 33 P.2d 772, 775…”  Black’s Law Dictionary, Rev. 4th Ed., page 986.  [Could be used anywhere]

The corpus delecti must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  State v. Lalizer, 4 Minn. 368.

“A “cause of action” is a violation of a legal right.”  Halliwill v. Mutual Service Ca. Ins. Co., 100 N.W.2d 817.

“To have standing to bring claim, a person must have suffered some injury in fact as a result of the alleged actions.”  Epland v. Meade Ins. Agency Associates, 564 N.W.2d 203, 208 (Minn. 1997).

“Judicial power is the power that adjudicates upon the rights or persons or property, and to that end declares, construes and applies the law.”  In re Hunstiger, 153 N.W. 869, 870.

Mississippi:

“The Latin words “corpus delecti” mean literally, “the body of the crime”.  In order to prove the corpus delecti, there are two elements which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:  One, the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of that criminal charge; and, two, the existence of criminal agency as the cause of this act or result…It is a well-settled principal of criminal law that a conviction for crime cannot be had unless the corpus delecti-that is, the fact that a crime has actually been perpetrated (the fact of injury or harm and the existence of some person criminally responsible therefore)-is first established by the prosecution.  In other words, the prosecution must establish the actual commission, by someone, of the particular offense charged.  The accused is not required in any case to answer a charge against him in the absence of evidence upon the part of the prosecution sufficient to establish the corpus delecti; and if an accused is found guilty despite the failure of the prosecution to establish the corpus delecti, the verdict may be set aside and a new trial ordered…the reason the state is requried to prove the corpus delecti is to satisfy the mind that there is a real and not an imaginary crime for which the accused stands charged.”  Kirtkland v. State, 371 So.2d 402, 404.

“It [corpus delecti] has two elements which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to show that a crime has actually been committed [citations omitted].  First, it is necessary to prove the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge…Moreover, the State must prove the existence of criminal agency as the cause of this act or result…However, “[e]very element, criminal charge, and criminal agency myst be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.””  Parks v. State, 884 So.2d 738, 743 (Miss. 2004).

“The United States Supreme Court has stated the concept of standing generally embraces “the general prohibition on a litigant raising another person’s legal rights…”  Mount v. Mount, 624 So2d. 997, 1001.

“A suit cannot be maintained where it appears from the declaration itself the right of action is not in the party suing, but in another.”  Haynes v. Ezell, 25 Miss. (3 Cushm.) 242.

Missouri:

“To prove guilt of any crime, State must first demonstrate the crime’s corpus delecti, or body of crime, consisting of two elements – that loss or injury charged has occurred and that someone’s criminal agency caused loss or injury.”  State v. Davis, 797 S.W.2d 560.

“”Corpus delecti” consists of proof, direct or circumstantial, the specific loss or injury occurred and criminal behavior by someone as cause of loss or injury.”  State v. Frentzel, 730 S.W.2d 554.

“The corpus delecti rule requires that the corpus delecti or the body or substance of the crime charged be proved independent from the accused’s extrajudicial confession or admissions.  The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements: (1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. [citing] People v Jennings, 53 Cal 3d 334, 279 Cal Rptr 780, 807 P2d 1009, 92 CDOS 2576, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4222, reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 464, 112 S Ct 443…People v Pensinger, 52 Cal 3d 1210, 278 Cal Rptr 640, 805 P2d 899, 91 CDOS 1514, 91 Daily Journal DAR 2504, mod 53 Cal 3d 729a, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4745 and stay gr (Cal) 1991 Cal LEXIS 3318 and reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 290, 112 S Ct 351, 91 Daily Journal DAR 12909, reh den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 821, 112 S Ct 923; State v Pullos, 76 Idaho 369, 283 P2d 590; People v Friedland (1st Dist) 202 Ill App 3d 1094, 148 Ill Dec 415, 560 NE2d 1012; Brown v State, 239 Ind 184, 154 NE2d 720, cert den 361 US 936, 4 L Ed 2d 360, 80 S Ct 375; Joseph v State, 236 Ind 529, 141 NE2d 109, 69 ALR2d 824, cert dism 359 US 117, 3 L Ed 2d 673, 79 S Ct 720; People v Aiken, 66 Mich 460, 33 NW 821; People v Gould, 156 Mich App 413, 402 NW2d 27; State v Simler, 350 Mo 646, 167 SW2d 376; State v Hill, 47 NJ 490, 221 A2d 725; State v Robinson (App. Scioto Co) 83 Ohio L Abs 259, 168 NE2d 328; State v Brown, 103 SC 437, 88 SE 21…there must be sufficient proof of both elements of the corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt.”  29A American Jurisprudence Second Ed., Evidence § 1476.

““Corpus delecti” consists of two elements: proof, direct or circumstantial, that specific loss or injury occurred, and that someone’s criminality is cause of loss or injury; proof need not include proof of defendant’s connection with crime charged.”  State v. Friesen, 725 SW2d 638, 639.

“Lack of standing cannot be waived.”  In re Ancillary Adversary Proceeding Questions, 89 S.W.3d 460.

“A party seeking relief must have a legally cognizable interest in the subject matter and a threatened or actual injury to have standing.”  Meyer v. Meyer, 77 S.W.3d 40.

“A party is “injured” for purposes of determining whether a party has standing to sue, if a legal right of that party is violated.”  R.J.S. Sec., Inc. v. Command Sec. Services, Inc., 101 S.W.3d 1.

“Regardless of the action’s merits, unless the parties to the action have proper standing, a court may not entertain the action…Standing requires that a party seeking relief have a legally cognizable interest in the subject matter and that he has a threatened or actual injury.”  E. Mo. Laborers D. Coun. v. St. Louis Cty., 781 S.W.2d 43, 45-46 (Mo.banc 1989).

Montana:

“Generally speaking, the term “corpus delecti,” when applied to any particular offense, means that the specific crime charged has actually been committed by some one, and it is made up of two elements: First, that a certain result has been produced…second, that some one is criminally responsible for the result…”State v. Kindle, 227 P. 65, 67.

“We have previously stated that the following criteria must be satisfied to establish standing: (1) The complaining party must clearly allege past, present or threatened injury to a property or civil right; and (2) the alleged injury must be distinguishable from the injury to the public generally, but the injury need not be exclusive to the complaining party.”  Gryczan v. State, 942 P.2d 112, 118.

“Standing is a threshold requirement of every case.”  Palmer v. Bahm, 128 P.3d 1031.

“‘Standing’ is a person’s right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right.”  In re Parenting of D.A.H., 109 P.3d 247.

“Standing is part of the larger question whether a controversy is justiciable.” Stroebe v. State, 127 P.3d 1051.

“It is axiomatic and this court has consistently held that the existence of a justiciable controversy is a threshold requirement in order for a court to grant relief…To maintain an action the plaintiff must show that he has a right to be enforced or a wrong to be prevented or redressed…but he is is without standing where it is not shown that his rights have been, or are about to be, invaded.”  Powder River County v. State, 60 P.3d 357, 379 (Mont. 2002).

“Standing to sue refers to a “party’s right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right…A threshold requirement of every case is that a party have standing to bring the action…The mere fact that a person is entitled to bring an action under a given statute is insufficient to establish standing; the party must allege some past, present, or threatened injury which would be alleviated by successfully maintaining the action…Since the general rule is that ‘a litigant may only assert his own constitutional rights or immunities…’”  In re B.F., 87 P.3d 427, 430-431.

Nebraska:

“To sustain a conviction, the corpus delecti must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”  State v. George, 424 N.W.2d 350, 351.

The corpus delecti must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Chezem v, State, 76 N.W. 1056, 56 Neb. 496; McCue v. State, 198 N.W. 163, 112 Neb. 9

“To establish standing to being suit it is necessary to show that party is in danger of sustaining direct injury as result of anticipated action…”  First Federal Sav. & Loan Assn. of Lincoln v. Department of Banking, 192 N.W.2d 736.

” To have standing to invoke a tribunal’s jurisdiction, one must have some legal or equitable right, title or interest in the subject of the controversy.”  Douglas County Bd. of Com’rs v. Civil Service Com’n, Douglas County, 641 N.W.2d 55.

“In order to have standing, a litigant must assert the litigant’s own legal rights and interests and cannot rest his or her claim on the legal rights or interests of third parties…”  Adam v. City of Hastings, 676 N.W.2d 710.

“Standing is the legal or equitable right, title or interest in the subject of the controversy…Standing relates to the court’s power, that is, jurisdiction, to address the issues presented and serves to indentify those disputes which are appropriately resolved through the judicial process…Standing is a jurisdictional component of a party’s case because only a party who has standing may invoke the jurisdiction of a court…The purpose of an inquiry as to standing is to determine whether one has a legally protectable interest or right in the controversy…In order to have standing, a litigant must assert the litigant’s own legal rights and interests and cannot rest his or her claim on the legal rights or interests of third parties.”  County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna, 678 N.W.2d 740 (Neb. 2004).

“A cause of action is judicial protection of one’s recognized right or interest, when another, owing a corresponding duty not to invade or violate such right or interest, has caused a breach of that duty.”  Millman v. County of Butler, 458 N.W.2d 207, 214.

“generally judicial power is the authority to hear and determine a controversy as to rights and upon such determination to render a judgment binding upon the disputants.”  Laverty v. Cochran, 271 N.W. 354, 357.

New Hampshire:

“To establish causation, the State needed to prove not only that the prohibited result would not have occurred but for the conduct of the defendant, but also that the defendant’s conduct was the legal (or proximate) cause of the prohibited result.”  State v. Lamprey, 821 A.2d 1080, 1082 (N.H. 2003)

“In evaluating whether a party has standing to sue, we focus on whether the plaintiff suffered a legal injury against which the law was designed to protect.”  Roberts v. General Motors Corp., 643 A.2d 956, 958 (N.H. 1994).

“In evaluating whether a party has standing to sue, we focus on whether the plaintiff suffered a legal injury against which the law was designed to protect…Here, the plaintiffs suffered no injury…They therefore lack standing…”  Malnati v. State, 803 A.2d 587, 590 (N.H. 2002).

“the duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it.”  Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 405, 21 SCt. 206, 208.

New Jersey:

The term “corpus delecti” embraces occurrence of loss or injury and criminal causation thereof.”  State v. Hill, 221 A.2d 725, 728, 47 N.J. 490.

“The corpus delecti rule requires that the corpus delecti or the body or substance of the crime charged be proved independent from the accused’s extrajudicial confession or admissions.  The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements: (1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. [citing] People v Jennings, 53 Cal 3d 334, 279 Cal Rptr 780, 807 P2d 1009, 92 CDOS 2576, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4222, reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 464, 112 S Ct 443…People v Pensinger, 52 Cal 3d 1210, 278 Cal Rptr 640, 805 P2d 899, 91 CDOS 1514, 91 Daily Journal DAR 2504, mod 53 Cal 3d 729a, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4745 and stay gr (Cal) 1991 Cal LEXIS 3318 and reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 290, 112 S Ct 351, 91 Daily Journal DAR 12909, reh den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 821, 112 S Ct 923; State v Pullos, 76 Idaho 369, 283 P2d 590; People v Friedland (1st Dist) 202 Ill App 3d 1094, 148 Ill Dec 415, 560 NE2d 1012; Brown v State, 239 Ind 184, 154 NE2d 720, cert den 361 US 936, 4 L Ed 2d 360, 80 S Ct 375; Joseph v State, 236 Ind 529, 141 NE2d 109, 69 ALR2d 824, cert dism 359 US 117, 3 L Ed 2d 673, 79 S Ct 720; People v Aiken, 66 Mich 460, 33 NW 821; People v Gould, 156 Mich App 413, 402 NW2d 27; State v Simler, 350 Mo 646, 167 SW2d 376; State v Hill, 47 NJ 490, 221 A2d 725; State v Robinson (App. Scioto Co) 83 Ohio L Abs 259, 168 NE2d 328; State v Brown, 103 SC 437, 88 SE 21…there must be sufficient proof of both elements of the corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt.”  29A American Jurisprudence Second Ed., Evidence § 1476.

“Proof of the corpus delecti – the fact of injury or, in a homicide case, of death, by a criminal agency – may be supplied by direct or circumstantial evidence.  State v. Zarinsky, 362 A.2d 611, 621.

“Proof of the corpus delecti is required in all criminal cases…There are three basic elements in the proof of a crime: (1) the occurrence of loss or injury, (2) criminal causation of that loss or injury and (3) the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime.  However, it is firmly established in this State that the term corpus delecti embraces only the first two of these elements-loss or injury and criminal causation.”  State v. Hill, 221 A.2d 725, 728.

“It is true that the above care all cases of felonious homicide, but the doctrine [of corpus delecti] is in nowise peculiar to such cases; it is equally applicable to all criminal cases.”  State v. Gelzeiler, 128 A. 240.

“Standing in no way depends on the merits of the plaintiff’s contention that particular conduct is illegal.”  Watkins v. Resorts Intern. Hotel & Casino, 591 A.2d 592, 601 (N.J. 1991).

“Normally, an individual will only be permitted to seek judicial vindication of his own rights.”  State v. Norflett, 337 A.2d 609.

“Standing requires only a substantial likelihood of some harm visited upon the plaintiff in the event of an unfavorable decision.” In re Camden County, 790 A.2d 158.

New Mexico:

“‘Standing’ is a doctrine requiring that the claimant must have a personal stake in the outcome of the case; the claimant must allege both injury in fact and a traceable causal connection between the claimed injury and the challenged conduct.  Dona Ana County Clerk v. Martinez, 124 P.3d 210.

“Standing requires injury in fact, causation, and likelihood of redress.”  Williams v. Stewart, 112 P.3d 281.

“Lack of standing is a potential jurisdictional defect, which may not be waived and may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even sua sponte by the appellate court.”  Gunaji v. Macias, 31 P.3d 1008.

New York:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men”  New York constitution, April 20, 1777.

“A crime is an inexcusable act committed by an individual in excess of his personal liberties and injures person or property within the victim’s personal freedom or property right.”

“What is liberty or freedom?”

“This freedom and liberty of man should be absolute with the one exception-that when the exercise of that liberty infringes upon the liberty of another, the actor invading another’s liberty commits a wrong and to protect individuals from that invasion, society may class such invasion as crime, and provide for punishment.”  People v. Douglas, 202 N.Y.S.2d 160, 162-163.

“Mere legislataive fiat may not take the place of fact in the determination of issues involving life, liberty and property.  Manley v. State of Georgia, 279 U.S. 1, 49 S.Ct. 215, 73 L.Ed. 575…The ultimate fact to be established here, is illegal possession of a gun.  The fact proven would be merely the legislative presumption.  There would be no actual proof…Under our law the corpus delecti must be proved; here it is presumed…The Legislature has no power to declare one guilty of a crime; that is the function of the court after due proof.  It is unconstitutional for the Legislature to presume the guilt of the accused.  Under this section there is nothing against which to defend, because no crime has been proved.”  People v. Pinder, 9 N.Y.S.2d 311, 310-311.

“The jurisdiction of this Court extends only to live controversies (see Matter of Grand Jury Subpoenas for Locals 17, 135, 257 & 608, 72 N.Y.2d 307, 311, 532 N.Y.S.2d 722, 528 N.E.2d 1195 [1988];  Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 713-714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980] ).”

“Standing to sue is critical to the proper functioning of the judicial system.   It is a threshold issue.   If standing is denied, the pathway to the courthouse is blocked.   The plaintiff who has standing, however, may cross the threshold and seek judicial redress. It is difficult to draw an exquisitely sharp line separating the worthy litigant from one who would generate a lawsuit to advance someone else’s cause.   The rules governing standing help courts separate the tangible from the abstract or speculative injury, and the genuinely aggrieved from the judicial dilettante or amorphous claimant.

“For generations, New York courts have treated standing as a common-law concept, requiring that the litigant have something truly at stake in a genuine controversy.”  Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v. Pataki (2003)

“An analysis of standing begins with a determination of whether the party seeking relief has sustained an injury (see Society of Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 772-773, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1043 [1991]).”  Mahoney v. Pataki, 772 N.E.2d 1118, 1122 (N.Y. 2002).

“A plaintiff has standing to maintain an action upon alleging an injury in fact that falls within his or her zone of interest.”  Silver v. Pataki, 755 N.E.2d 842, 847 (N.Y. 2001).

“As we have has on occasion to observe in recent years, “[o]nly where there is a clear legislative intent negating review * * * or lack of injury in fact * * * will standing be denied…”  Matter of Dist. Atty. of Suffolk County, 448 N.E.2d 440, 443 (N.Y. 1983).

“To adjudicate upon, and protect the rights and interests of individual citizens, and to that end to construe and apply the laws, is the peculiar province of the judicial department…The judicial power “is the power to hear and determine those matters which affect the life, liberty, or property of the citizens of the state.”  (City of Sapulpa v. Land, 101 Okl. 22, 223 P. 640, 644, 35 A.L.R. 872, 878.)”  Nash v. Brooks, 297 N.Y.S. 853, 855-856.

Nevada:

“To establish standing, Kirkpatrick must show that he suffered an injury in fact, that there is a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and that it is likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.[Footnote] Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 731, 751…See also Elley v. Stephens, 104 Nev. 413, 416, 760 P.2d 768, 770 (1998).”  Kirkpatrick v.Dist. Ct., 43 P.3d 998, 1005 (Nev. 2002).

North Dakota:

“To have standing to bring action, plaintiff must have suffered some threatened or actual injury resulting from putatively illegal action, asserted harm must not be specialized grievances shared by all or large class of citizens.”  Trinity Medical Center v. North Dakota Bd. of Nursing, 399 N.W.2d 835.

“And a definition which we consider appropriate and fully sustained is that judicial power is authority vested in some court, officer, or person to hear and determine when the rights of persons or property, or the propriety of doing an act, are the subject-matter of adjudication.”  State v. Blaisdell, 132 N.W. 769, 773.

North Carolina:

“constitutionally, a plaintiff can only have standing if it satisfies the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III of the Constitution of the United States.  See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 US 614, 617…Under Supreme Court precedent, a plaintiff satisfies the Article III requirement if it meets a three-pronged test: (1) the plaintiff must have suffered “injury in fact’; (2) there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) it must be likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.  See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559…The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing these three elements.  See Burten v. Central Interstate URWC Comm’n., 23 F3d 208, 209 (8th Cir. 1994).  Additionally, the Supreme Court as articulated three prudential limits on standing…lastly, the plaintiff must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim on the legal rights of others [citing Valley Forge v. Americans United, 454 US 464, 474].  Transco v. Calco Enterprises, 511 S.E.2d 671, 678.

“A “person aggrieved” for standing purposes, is one adversly affected in respect to legal rights, or suffering from an infringement or denial of legal rights.”  County of Johnston v. City of Wilson, 525 S.E.2d 425.

“Standing is an aspect of subject matter jurisdiction.”  Transcontinental Gas Line Corp. v. Calco Enterprises, 511 S.E.2d 671.

“Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing standing…If a party does not have standing to bring a claim, a court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim.”  Munger v. State Ill., No. COA09-375.

Ohio:

“The corpus delecti rule requires that the corpus delecti or the body or substance of the crime charged be proved independent from the accused’s extrajudicial confession or admissions.  The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements: (1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. [citing] People v Jennings, 53 Cal 3d 334, 279 Cal Rptr 780, 807 P2d 1009, 92 CDOS 2576, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4222, reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 464, 112 S Ct 443…People v Pensinger, 52 Cal 3d 1210, 278 Cal Rptr 640, 805 P2d 899, 91 CDOS 1514, 91 Daily Journal DAR 2504, mod 53 Cal 3d 729a, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4745 and stay gr (Cal) 1991 Cal LEXIS 3318 and reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 290, 112 S Ct 351, 91 Daily Journal DAR 12909, reh den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 821, 112 S Ct 923; State v Pullos, 76 Idaho 369, 283 P2d 590; People v Friedland (1st Dist) 202 Ill App 3d 1094, 148 Ill Dec 415, 560 NE2d 1012; Brown v State, 239 Ind 184, 154 NE2d 720, cert den 361 US 936, 4 L Ed 2d 360, 80 S Ct 375; Joseph v State, 236 Ind 529, 141 NE2d 109, 69 ALR2d 824, cert dism 359 US 117, 3 L Ed 2d 673, 79 S Ct 720; People v Aiken, 66 Mich 460, 33 NW 821; People v Gould, 156 Mich App 413, 402 NW2d 27; State v Simler, 350 Mo 646, 167 SW2d 376; State v Hill, 47 NJ 490, 221 A2d 725; State v Robinson (App. Scioto Co) 83 Ohio L Abs 259, 168 NE2d 328; State v Brown, 103 SC 437, 88 SE 21…there must be sufficient proof of both elements of the corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt.”  29A American Jurisprudence Second Ed., Evidence § 1476.

“A plaintiff must show the injury to himself caused by the defendant, the injury having a remedy in law or equity.  The injury need not be either large or economic, but it must be palpable.  Warth , 422 U.S. at 498…Finally, plaintiff’s injury cannot be merely speculative.  A bare allegation that plaintiff fears that some injury will or may occur is insufficient to confer standing.  Los Angeles v. Lyons, (1983), 461 U.S. 95, 103…”  Tieman v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 712 N.E.2d 1258, 1267.

“The United States Supreme Court has held that an association has standing on behalf of its members when “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose…However, to have standing, the association must establish that its members have suffered an actual injury.”  Ohio Contractors Assn. v. Bicking, 643 N.E.2d 1088, 1089 (Ohio 1994).

“Judicial power, on the other hand, is authority to hear and determine where the rights of persons or property, or the propriety of doing an act, are the subject-matter of adjudication and the judicial act involves the exercise of judgmentor discretion.  Ward v. Board of Commissioners of Okfuskee County, 114 Okl. 246, 246 P. 376.”  Geauga Lake Improvement Ass’n v. Lozier, 182 N.E. 489, 491.

Oklahoma:

Corpus delecti means the body or substance of the crime charged.  27 Wharton’s Criminal Law 142 (14th ed. 1978).  It consists of two elements: a criminally prohibited injury and a criminally prohibited act as its cause.”  Fontenot v. State, 881 P.2d 69, 77 (Okl.Cr. 1994).

“”Corpus delecti” means body or substance of crime charge, and it consists of criminally prohibited injury and criminally prohibited act as it’s cause.”  Fontenot v. State, 881 P.2d 69.

“The judicial power here conferred by the Constitution is the power to hear and determine those matters which affect the life, liberty, or property of the citizens of the state…”  City of Sapulpa v. Land, 223 P. 640, 644, 101 Okl 22.

“At a minimum standing is composed of three elements.  These components are: (1) a legally protected interest which must have been injured in fact-i.e., an injury which is actual, concrete and not conjectural in nature, (2) a causal nexus between the injury and the complained conduct, and (3) a likelihood as opposed to mere speculation, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision…Finally, assessment of standing is not a decision on the merits.  Rather, it is a determination whether the plaintiff is the proper party to seek adjudication of the asserted issue.”  Cities Servies Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 976 P.2d 545, 547.

“At minimum, “standing” contains three elements: plaintiff have separate injury in fact, there must be causal connection between injury and condict complained of, and it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that injury will be redressed by favorable decision.”  Toxic Waste Impact Group, Inc. v. Leavitt, 890 P.3d 906.

“party must assert his/her own legal rights and interests and cannot rest claim for relief on the rights or interests of third parties.”  Independent School Dist. NO. 9 v. Glass, 639 P.2d 1233, 1237.

“Judicial power is authority to hear and determine, where the rights or persons or property, or the propriety of doing an act, are the subject-matter of adjudication…”  Ward v. Board of Com’rs, 246 P. 376, 378 [quoting In re Courthouse of Okmulgee County, 161 P. 200.

Oregon:

"Literally, the phrase means the `body of the crime.' To establish guilt, it is generally necessary for the prosecution to show that (a) the injury or harm specified in the crime occurred, (b) [that] injury or harm was caused by someone’s criminal activity, and (c) the defendant was the guilty party. To sustain a conviction, the requirement of independent proof of the corpus delictidemands only that the prosecution have introduced independent evidence tending to show (a) and (b). It is not necessary that the independent proof tend to connect the defendant with the crime.”  State v. Chatelain, 220 P. 3d 41.  [The court here does try to confuse the two thing, the injury, the element of the crime, with a procedural rule.]

“Standing is an aspect of justiciability which may not be waived.”  Strank v. Public Employees Retirement Board, 108 P.3d 1058.

“A person has standing if resolution of the issues presented will have a practical effect on his or her rights.”  Generaux v. Dobyns, 134 P.3d 983, 986.

“At least in the absence of a statute, a party has standing to assert only its own legal rights.”  Estate of Selmar A. Hutchins v. Fargo, 72 P.3d 638, 640.

“[r]egardless of what the legislature provides regarding the standing of litigants to obtain judicial relief, the courts always must determine that the constitutional requirements of justiciability are satisified. [citation omitted] Specifically, we reasoned that (1) the party that invokes the jurisdiction of the court has the “obligation to establish the justiciability of the claim…(2) to establish that the claim is justiciable, the party “must demonstrate that a decision in this case will have a practical effect on its rights.”  Barton v. City of Lebanon, 88 P.3d 323, 326.

Pennsylvania:

“The “corpus delecti consists of the occurrence of a loss or injury resulting from some person’s criminal conduct.”  Commonwealth v. McMullen, 545 Pa. 361, 681 A.2d 717, 721 (1996).  The corpus delecti rules requires the Commonwealth to present evidence that: (1) a loss has occurred; and (2) the loss occurred as a result of a criminal agency.  Commonwealth v. May, 451 Pa. 31, 301 A.2d 368, 369 (1973).”  Commonwealth v. Taylor, 831 A.2d 587, 591 (Pa. 2003).

“It has long been fundamental to the criminal jurisprudence of this Commonwealth that a necessary predicate to any conviction if proof of the corpus delecti, i.e., the occurrence of any injury or loss and someone’s criminality as the source of this injury or loss.  See Commonwealth v. Burns, 490 Pa. 619, 627, 187 A.2d 552, 556-557 (1963); Commonwealth v. Turza, 340 Pa. 128, 133, 16 A.2d 401, 404 (1940).”  Commonwealth v. Maybee, 239 A.2d 332, 333.

“The two elements of “corpus delecti” are that loss or injury has occurred and that loss or injury occurred through criminal agency; identity of party responsible for act is not element of corpus delecti.”  Com. v. Rieland, 471 A.2d 490, 491.

““Corpus delecti” consists of occurrence of injury or loss consistent with commission of crime by someone.”  Com. v. Daniels, 422 A.2d 196, 199.

““Corpus delecti,” meaning the body of the crime, consists of an occurrence of a specified type of loss or injury and someone’s criminal activity as a source thereof.”  Com. v. Ware, 329 A.2d 258, 274, 459 Pa. 334.
“The corpus delecti is established upon evidence of (1) the occurence of the specific  kind of injury or loss; and, (2) someone’s criminality as the source of loss.”  Com. Kasunic, 620 A.2d 525, 529.

“Pennsylvania appellate courts have repeatedly held that corpus delecti consists of the occurrence of injury or loss consistent with commission of a crime by someone.”  Commonwealth v. Daniels, 422 A.2d 196, 199.

“It is a well-settled principal of law that a crime is an offense against the sovereignty, a wrong which the government deems injurious not only to the victim but to the public at large, and which it punishes through a judicial proceeding in the Commonwealth’s name.  21 Am.Jur.2d 61, pp. 115-116.  Though the same wrongful act may consititute both a crime and a tort, the tort is a private injury which is to be pursued by the injured party.  Id., at [section] 2, p. 116.  Criminal prosecutions are not to settle private grievances but are to rectify the injury done to the Commonwealth.”  Com. v. Malloy, 450 A.2d 689, 691.

“The requirement of standing arises from the principal that judicial intervention is appropriate only when the underlying controversy is real and concrete.”  Pittsburg Palisades Park, LLC v. Com., 888 A.2d 655.

“For standing purposes, a “direct interest” in the litigation requires a showing that the matter complained of caused harm to the party’s interest…for standing purposes, an “immediate interest” in the outcome of the litigation involves the nature of the causal connection between the action complained of and the injury to the party challenging it.”  In re Hickson, 821 A.2d 1238.

“Standing is not conferred via a party’s relationship to the proceedings, but is conferred by a direct connection to a substantive injury, and by a causal connection between the action complained of and the injury to the person challenging it.”  Com v. J.H., 759 A.2d 1269.

Rhode Island:

“Before it may obtain a conviction for a criminal offense, the state must prove corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt.  In re Pereira, 111 R.I. 712, 714, 306 A.2d 821, 823 (1973); State v. Maloney, 111 R.I. 133, 138 n.1, 300 A.2d 259, 262 n.1 (1973).  The corpus delecti comprises two elements: a penally proscribed act or injury and the unlawfullness of some person in causing the injury.”  State v. Halstead, 414 A.2d 1138, 1143 (R.I. 1980).

“To have standing, the plaintiff must allege to the court’s satisfaction that the challenged action has caused him injury in fact, economic or otherwise.”  McKenna v. Williams, 874 A.2d 217.

“Standing is not determined by whether injury caused by challenged action is substantial or insubstantial, but only whether there is some injury as opposed to no injury.”  Weybosset Hill Investments, LLC v. Rossi, 857 A.2d 231.

“By definition, a justiciable controversy must contain a plaintiff who has standing to pursue the action; that is to say, a plaintiff who has suffered “injury in fact…Injury in fact maybe characterized as “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized * * * and (b) actual or immenent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’”  Meyer v. City of Newport, 844 A.2d 148, 151 (R.I. 2004).

South Carolina:

“in order to authorize a conviction, the state must prove these [corpus delecti] elements beyond a reasonable doubt…” State v. Thomas, 73 S.E.2d 722, 723.

“Before any action can be maintained, a justiciable controversy must be present…(A justiciable controversy exists when a concrete issue is presented, there is a definite assertion of legal rights and a positive legal duty which is denied by the adverse party.”)…A plaintiff must have standing to institute an action.  Joytime Distrbs. & Amusement Co., Inc. v. State, 338 S.C. 634, 639, 528 S.E.2d 647, 649.”  Sloan v. Greenville County, 590 S.E.2d 338, 346, 347.

“”A Court of law can know no other persons as parties, than those whose rights are made to appear by the record…”  M’Elwee v. House, 17 S.C.L. (1 Bail.) 108, 109 (1828).”  Nelson v. QHG of South Carolina Inc., 580 S.E.2d 171, 178 (2003).

South Dakota:

“The corpus delecti rule requires that the corpus delecti or the body or substance of the crime charged be proved independent from the accused’s extrajudicial confession or admissions.  The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements: (1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. [citing] People v Jennings, 53 Cal 3d 334, 279 Cal Rptr 780, 807 P2d 1009, 92 CDOS 2576, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4222, reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 464, 112 S Ct 443…People v Pensinger, 52 Cal 3d 1210, 278 Cal Rptr 640, 805 P2d 899, 91 CDOS 1514, 91 Daily Journal DAR 2504, mod 53 Cal 3d 729a, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4745 and stay gr (Cal) 1991 Cal LEXIS 3318 and reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 290, 112 S Ct 351, 91 Daily Journal DAR 12909, reh den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 821, 112 S Ct 923; State v Pullos, 76 Idaho 369, 283 P2d 590; People v Friedland (1st Dist) 202 Ill App 3d 1094, 148 Ill Dec 415, 560 NE2d 1012; Brown v State, 239 Ind 184, 154 NE2d 720, cert den 361 US 936, 4 L Ed 2d 360, 80 S Ct 375; Joseph v State, 236 Ind 529, 141 NE2d 109, 69 ALR2d 824, cert dism 359 US 117, 3 L Ed 2d 673, 79 S Ct 720; People v Aiken, 66 Mich 460, 33 NW 821; People v Gould, 156 Mich App 413, 402 NW2d 27; State v Simler, 350 Mo 646, 167 SW2d 376; State v Hill, 47 NJ 490, 221 A2d 725; State v Robinson (App. Scioto Co) 83 Ohio L Abs 259, 168 NE2d 328; State v Brown, 103 SC 437, 88 SE 21…there must be sufficient proof of both elements of the corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt.”  29A American Jurisprudence Second Ed., Evidence § 1476.

“Generally, for a litigant to have standing to bring an action before the court, litigant must show that he personally as suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of putatively illegal conduct of defendant.”  Parsons v. South Dakota Lottery Com’n., 504 N.W.2d 593, 595.

“‘Generally, for a litigant to have standing to bring an action before the court, litigant must show that he personally as suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of putatively illegal conduct of defendant.’”  Parsons v. South Dakota Lottery Commissioner., 504 N.W.2d 593, 595 (S.D. 1993) (quoting Gladstone, Realtors v. Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99…”  Mahan v. Avera St. Luke’s, 621 N.W.2d 150, 154 (S.D. 2001).

Tennessee:

“In order to establish the corpus delecti of a crime, the State must establish beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that a certain result has been produced and (2) that someone is criminally responsible for the act.  State v. Jones, 15 S.W.3d 880, 890-891.”  State v. Ellis, 89 S.W.3d 584, 600.

“Corpus delecti of crime requires showing that certain result has been produced and that result was created through criminal agency.”  State v. Ervin, 731 S.W.2d 70.

“First we must address the issue of standing, a judge-made doctrine based on the idea that ‘[a] court may and properly should refuse to entertain an action at the instance of one who rights have not been involved or infringed.’ 59 AmJur.2d Parties § 30 (1987).  In state law it parallels the constitutional restriction on federal court jurisdiction to “cases and controversies.” U.S. Const. Art. 3 § 2.  It has been said that no case or controversy is presented where the plaintiff lacks standing to sue.  Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1…“In determining whether the plaintiff has a personal stake sufficient to confer standing, the focus should be on whether the complaining party has alleged an injury in fact, economic or otherwise…”  Mayhew v. Wilder, 46 S.W.3rd 760, 767.

“In order to establish standing, a party must demonstrate three essential elements.  Metropolitan Air Research Testing Auth. Inc., v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville and Durston County, 842 S.W.2d 611, 615…First, the party must demonstrate that it has suffered an injury which is ‘distinct and palpable,’…and not conjectural or hypothetical…Second, the party must establish a causal connection between the injury and the conduct of which he complains…Third, it must be likely that a favorable decision will redress the injury…These elements are indispensable to the plaintiff’s case, and must be supported by the same degree of evidence at each stage of litigation as other matters on which plaintiff bears the burden of proof.  Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560…”  Petty v. Daimler/Chrysler Corp., 91 S.W.3d 765.

“To establish one’s standing to bring an action, “a party must demonstrate (1) that it has sustained a distinct and palpable injury, (2) that the injury was caused by the challenged conduct, and (3) that the injury is apt to be redressed by a remedy the court is prepared to give.”  City of Chattanooga v. Davis, 54 S.W.3d 248, 280 (Tenn. 2001).  [By the way, this is a criminal case, Marc Stevens]

Texas:

“Wigmore explains the American concept of the corpus delecti rule thus:

[Every crime] reveals three component parts, first, the occurrence  of the specific kind of injury or loss (as in homicide, a person deceased; in arson, a house burnt; in larceny, property missing); secondly, somebody’s criminality (in contrast, e.g., to accident) as the source of the loss,–these two together involving the commission of a crime by somebody; and thirdly, the accused’s identity as the doer of the crime.

In most American jurisdictions, including Texas, the corpus delecti rules requires some corroboration of the first two elements-an injury or loss and a criminal agent…”  Salazar v. State, 86 S.W.3d 640, 645.

“It is too elementary that injury must be plead and proved before a cause of action arises to require the citation of authorities.”  Whitesboro Nat. Bank v. Wells, 182 S.W.2d 516, 518.

“It is axiomatic that standing is the first prerequisite to maintaining a suit.  Hunt v. Bass, 664 S.W.2d 323, 324…Persons have standing to sue if they can show that (1) they have sustained some direct injury as a result of a wrongful act; (2) there is a direct relationship between their alleged injury and the claim sought to be adjudicated; (3) they have a personal stake in the controversy; (4) the challenged action as caused them an injury in fact, whether economic or otherwise…Because standing is a jurisdictional requirement, it may be addressed for the first time on appeal.”  Sierra Club v. Cedar Point Oil Co., 73 F3d 546, 555…”

“The Supreme Court held that because the named plaintiff was unable to allege and show that he personally had been injured by the defendant’s actions, his lack of individual standing precluded the trial court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction…The court explained that [o]ur state constitution contemplates, that plaintiffs seeking redress in the courts must first demonstrate standing.  Because the Texas constitution requires the presence of a proper party to raise issues before the court, standing is a threshold inquiry regardless of whether the plaintiff brings an individual or class action.”  Polaris Industries, Inc. v. McDonald, 119 S.W.3d   331, 338, 339.

“A “cause of action” constists of a plaintiff’s primary right and the defendant’s act or omission which violates that right. Stone Fort Nat. Bank of Nacogdoches v. Forbes, 126 Tex. 568, 91 S.W.2d 674, 676 (1936); Martinez v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 651 S.W.2d 18, 19…Moreover, a “cause of action” comprises every fact which is necessary for a plaintiff to prove in order to obtain judgment.”  Krchnak v. Fulton, 759 S.W.2d 524, 526.

“The requirement in this State that a plaintiff have standing to assert a claim derives from the Texas Constitution’s separation of powers among the departments of government, which denies the judiciary authority to decide issues in the abstract, and from the Open Courts provision, which provides court access only to a “person for an injury done him”. A court has no jurisdiction over a claim made by a plaintiff without standing to assert it.  For standing, a plaintiff must be personally aggrieved; his alleged injury must be concrete and particularized, actual or imminent, not hypothetical.  A plaintiff does not lack standing simply because he cannot prevail on the merits of his claim; he lacks standing because his claim of injury is too slight for a court to afford redress.”   Daimler Chrysler Corporation, v. Bill Inman et al, NO. 03-1189, Texas Supreme Court, 2008.

“The dissent argues that standing requires only, one, a real controversy that, two, will be determined.  Those are requirements for standing, but so is concrete injury, because if injury is only hypothetical, there is no real controversy.”   Daimler Chrysler Corporation, v. Bill Inman et al, NO. 03-1189, Texas Supreme Court, 2008.

Utah:

“Generally,  “‘[t]o establish guilt’ ” in a criminal case, “the prosecution [must] show that [1] the injury or harm specified in the crime occurred, [2] this injury or harm was caused by someone’s criminal activity, and [3] the defendant was the [perpetrator].’ ” State v. Talbot, 665 P.2d 1274, 1276 (Utah 1983) (citation omitted).  The corpus delecti, or body of the crime, involves only the first two elements, however.”  State v. Mauchley, 67 P.3d 477, 482 (Utah 2003).

“”Corpus delecti rule” states that person may not be convicted of crime if no independent evidence, outside defendant’s own statement, exists; to satisfy doctrine, state must produce independent evidence that injury or harm specified in crime occurred and that injury or harm was caused by someone’s criminal activity.”  State v. Archuleta, 850 P.2d 1232, 1241.

“Mr. Justice Cooley, in Post v. Campau, 42 Mich. 96, 3 N.W. 272, said: “The elements of a cause of action are, first, a breach of duty owing by one person to another; and second, a damage resulting to the other from the breach.”  In Foot v. Edwards, 3 Blatchf. 313, Fed. Cas. No. 4,908, Mr. Justice Ingersoll said: “The commission of an act by the defendant, and damage to the plaintiff in consequence thereof, must unite, to give a good cause of action.  No one of these facts by itself is a cause of action against the defendant.”  In City of North Vernon v. Vogler, 103 Ind. 319, 2 N.E. 821, it is said: “In every valid cause of action two elements must be present-the injury and the damage.  The one is the legal wrong which is to be redressed; the other, the scale or measure of the recovery.”  Fields v. Daisy Gold Min. Co., 73 P. 521, 522, 26 Utah, 373.

“An issue is “ripe” for adjudication only when it has sharpened into an actual or imminent clash of legal rights.”  Pett v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., 106 P.3d 705.

“In general, standing is available only to a person who has sustained some injury to her personal, legal, or property rights.”  In re E.H., 137 P.3d 809, 819.

“To satisfy the “basic requirements” of the traditional standing test, “a party must alleged that he or she has suffered or will immediately suffer an injury that is fairly traceable to the conduct at issue such that a favorable decision is likely to redress the injury.”  Chen v. Stewart, 123 P.3d 416, 437 (Utah 2005).

“In order  to have standing, a plaintiff must be able to show that he has suffered some distinct and polpable injury that gives him a personal stake in the outcome of the legal dispute.”  Council of Holliday City v. Larkin, 89 P.3d 164.

“Under principals of standing, a party may generally assert only his or her own legal rights, and cannot raise the claims of third parties who are not before the court.”  Provo City Corp. v. Thompson, 86 P.3d 735.

“The requirement that a plaintiff demonstrate particularized injury is the traditional test for standing.”  Washington County Water Conservancy Dist. v. Morgan, 82 P.3d 1125.

Vermont:

“courts must look behind names that symbolize the parties to determine whether a justiciable case or controversy is presented.”  State v. CNA Ins. Companies, 779 A.2d 662 (Vt 2001) [quoting United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 U.S. 426 (1949)].

“We examined, accordingly, the substance of the plaintiff’s constitutional and civil rights claims, concluding that they implicated no legally protected right under the constitution.  We affirmed, therefore, the trial court’s dismissal both on lack of standing and on the merits.”  Daye v. State, 769 A.2d 630, 633 (Vt. 2000).

“To satisfy the standing requirement, a plaintiff must show (1) injury-in-fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressibility; thus, the plaintiff must allege a personal injury traceable to the defendant’s conduct that the court can remedy…”  Brigham v. State, 889 A.2d 715.

“The main standing requirement is that the plaintiff show threat of injury to a protected interest.”  Blum v. Friedman, 782 A.2d 1204, 1207.

“the phrase “judicial power” implies the construction of laws and the adjudication of legal rights.”  Gould v. Parker, 42 A.2d 416, 418.

Virginia:

“But basic concepts of our criminal jurispridence cannot be treated lightly in a zealous, and albeit a commendable, desire to reduce crime and convict culpits.  Among these safeguards is the requirement that the State must establish the existence of the corpus delecti and prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt by admissible evidence.”  Pepoon v. Commonwealth, 66 S.E.2d 854, 859.

“Point of standing is to ensure that person who asserts a position has substantial legal right to do so and that his rights will be affected by disposition of the case.”  Cupp v. Board of Supr’s of Fairfax County, 318 S.E.2d 407.

“The purpose of requiring standing is to make certain that a party who asserts a particular position has the legal right to do so and that his rights will be affected by the disposition of the case.”  Goldman v. Landslide, 552 S.E.2d 67, 71 (Va. 2001).

Washington:

“All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” Washington constitution article I § 1.

“Corpus delecti is usually proven by following two elements: injury or loss, and someone’s criminal act as cause thereof…”  State v. Smith, 801 P.2d 975, 115 Wash.2d 775.

““Corpus delecti” consists of injury or loss and someone’s criminal act which caused it.”  State v. Espinoza, 774 P.2d 1177, 1182, 112 Wash.2d 819.

“Corpus delecti usually consists of two elements: (1)  an injury or loss… and (2)somone’s criminal act as the cause thereof.”  City of Bremerton v. Corbett, 773 P.2d 1135, 138, 106 Wash.2d 569.
“In order to establish the corpus delecti of any crime there must be shown to have existed a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge and the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of such act or result.”  State v. Goranson, 408 P.2d 7, 9, [quoting State v. Meyer, 37 Wash.2d 759, 763, 226 P.2d 204 (1951)].

“The term corpus delecti means the body of the crime, or, to state it differently, that the crime charged has actually been committed by some one.  It is made up of two elements: first, that a certain result has been produced, as that a human being has died; and second, that some one is criminally responsible for the result.  State v. Henderson, Or., 184 P.2d 392.”  State v. Jeannet, 192 P.2d 983, 984.

“The doctrine of standing prohibits a litigant from raising another’s legal rights.  Allen v. Wright, 468 US 737, 750-751.”  Huberman v. Public Power Supply System, 744 P.2d 1032, 1055.

“If a plaintiff lacks standing to bring a suit, courts lack jurisdiction to consider it.”  High Tide Seafoods v. State, 725 P2d 411, 415 (Wash. 1986).

“Injury in fact element of standing is satisfied when a plaintiff alleged the challenged action will cause a specific and personal harm.”  Kucera v. State, Dept. of Transp., 995 P.2d 63.

“Doctrine of standing prohibits the litigant from raising another’s legal rights.”  Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply System, 744 P.2d 1032.

Washington DC:

“It is an elementary matter of jurisprudence that an individual must have standing in order to maintain an action.  Basic to standing is the requirement that the individual be injured in fact by the conduct of the other party.  See, e.g., Lee v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals and Review, 423 A.2d 210 (D.C. 1980).  We find no injury to Burleson flowing from United’s conduct.  Burelson is without standing to maintain his action against United.”  Burelson v. United Title & Escrow Co. Inc., 484 A.2d 535, 537.

West Virginia:

“It is well-recognized, and we now so hold, that [s]tanding…is comprised of three  elements; first, the party…[attempting to establish standing] must have suffered an “injury-in-fact” – an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent and not conjectural or hypothetical.  Second, there must be a causal connection [between] the injury and the conduct forming the basis of the suit.  Third, it must be likely that the injury will be redressed through a favorable decision of the court.”  Findley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 576 S.E.2d 807,821.

“”Generally, standing is defined as ‘[a] party’s right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right.”” Findley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,  213 W.Va. 80, 94, 576 S.E.2d 807,821 (2002)…One aspect of standing is that one generally lacks standing to assert the rights of another.”  State ex rel. Lueng v. Sanders, 584 S.E.2d 203, 212 (W.Va. 2003).

Wisconsin:

“All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of  happiness; to  secure these  rights, governments are instituted  among men,  deriving their  just powers from the consent of the governed.”  Wisconsin constitution article I § 1 .

While the corpus delecti must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, yet it may be established by circumstantial as well as direct evidence.  Schwantes v. State, 106 N.W. 237, 127 Wis. 169.

“Law of standing is to be construed liberally; where an actual injury is demonstrated, even a trifling interest may be sufficient to confer standing.”  Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club v. Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Social Services, 387 N.W.2d 245.

“Wisconsin employs a two-step standing analysis.  The analysis requries the court to determine (1) whether the plaintiff has suffered a threatened or actual injury, and (2) whether the interest asserted is recognized by law.”  Schwittay v. Sheboygan Falls Mut. Ins. Co., 630 N.W.2d 772, 776.

Wyoming:

“A party has standing “only if he has a tangible and legally protectable interest at stake in the litigation; his interest must be injured or threatened with injury…”  Billings v. Wyoming Bd. of Outfitters, 88 P.3d 455, 479 (Wyo. 2004).

“the duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it.”  Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 405, 21 SCt. 206, 208.

In addition to the federal cases cited above:

“The plaintiff must show that he himself is injured by the challenged action of the defendant.  The injury may be indirect, see United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669, 688, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 2416, 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973), but the complaint must indicate that the injury is indeed fairly traceable to the defendant’s acts or omissions.  Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1925-1926, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976); O’Shea v. Littelton, 414 U.S. 488, 498, 94 S.Ct. 669, 677, 38 L.Ed2d 674 (1974); Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 1148, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973).”  Vil. of Arlington Hts. v. Metro Housing Dev., 429 U.S. 252, 262.

“Component parts of every crime are the occurrence of a specific kind of injury or loss, somebody’s criminality as source of the loss, and the accused’s identity as the doer of the crime; the first two elements are what constitutes the concept of “corpus delecti.”  U.S. v. Shunk, 881 F.2d 917, 919 C.A. 10 (Utah).

“Most American courts take the view that the phrase “corpus delecti” includes first, the fact of an injury or a loss and secondly, the fact of somebody’s criminality (in contrast e.g. to accident) as the cause of the injury or loss.”  United States. v. Echeles, 222 F.2d 144, 155 (C.A. 10th Cir Ill.).

“On the contrary, we share the view most American courts that the phrase “corpus delecti”includes but two elements: first, the fact of an injury or loss; and secondly, the fact of somebody’s criminality as the cause of the injury or loss.”  French v. United States, 232 F.2d 736 738, (C.A. 5th Cir. La.).

“To paraphrase one of the leading cases: ‘Most American courts take the view that the phrase “corpus delecti” includes first, the fact of an injury or a loss and secondly, the fact of somebody’s criminality (in contrast e.g. to accident) as the cause of the injury or loss…’  Manning v. United States, 10 Cir., 215 F.2d 945, at page 947; United States v. Echeles, 7 Cir., 1955, 222 F.2d 144; United States v. Di Orio, 3 Cir., 1940, 150 F.2d 938; George v. United States, 1942, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 197, 125 F.2d 559, 563; United States v. Markman, 2 Cir., 1952, 193 F.2d 574, 576.”  Sandez v. United States, 239 F.2d 239, 244 (C.A. 9th Cir. Calif.).

From England:

In Re S (Hospital Patient: Court’s Jurisdiction) [1996] Fam 1 – Times 1995-03-06 – Gazette 1995-04-12 – Independent 1995-03-07
“It is to be regarded rather as a reminder that the jurisdiction is limited to the resolution of justiciable issues; that the only kind of rights with which the court is concerned are legal rights; and that accordingly there must be a real and present dispute between the parties as to the existence or extent of a legal right”

              

7 Comments For This Post

  1. Leroy Says:

    While reading: Hunt v. Bass, 664 S.W.2d 323 (Texas cross-references)

    I could not find a quote of :

    “It is axiomatic that standing is the first prerequisite to maintaining a suit.”

    I did however find….this within this case.

    “This general rule of standing is applied in all cases absent a statutory exception to the contrary. Scott v. Board of Adjustment, 405 S.W.2d 55 (Tex.1966).

    Of course, the above assumes one is obligated to follow the statutes in the first place.

  2. Leroy Says:

    Obtained via Google Scholar:

    “The requirement of standing is implicit in the Texas Constitution’s open courts provision, which contemplates access to the courts only for those litigants suffering an injury. Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 444 (Tex.1993). Standing is a prerequisite to subject-matter jurisdiction, and subject-matter jurisdiction is essential to a court’s power to decide a case. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 553-54 (Tex. 2000). “[S]tanding focuses on the question of who may bring an action.” Patterson v. Planned Parenthood, 971 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex.1998).”

    The MD Anderson Cancer Center v. Novak, 52 SW 3d 704 – Tex: Supreme Court 2001

    Supreme Court stuff is always a good thing for those lower court judges/magistrates to contemplate.

  3. Leroy Says:

    Relating to my first post: Hunt v. Bass, 664 S.W.2d 323

    The quote, “It is axiomatic that standing is the first prerequisite to maintaining a suit.” does not exist in the opinion in that particular case. However, that quote is used in the opinion from case no:

    12-01-00372-CV

    POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC. v MCDONALD – APPEAL FROM THE 273RD

    indicating that it does indeed exist. So even judges misquote stuff…figures.

  4. Veronica Nabavian Says:

    Hi, great site however there is a problem whereby on occassion I am sent back to the main page when I view other webpages in your site.

  5. mitchell moffett Says:

    marc thanks again good info

  6. michael reynolds Says:

    I have a speeding ticket over 25 mph I goin to take it to trail and the ticket is overpriced according with the south Carolina code can u help me

  7. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ michael, I can, though I don’t challenge the ticket that way, it’s always about a lack of evidence proving jurisdiction..

10 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP – Dec 1, 2012 | MarcStevens.net Says:

    [...] can I find cases sourced within the motion to dismiss? What are some good legal resources? A: The standing cross-reference, local law libraries, Justia.com, and [...]

  2. Adam Has Another Ticket Kicked in California | MarcStevens.net Says:

    [...] But when you look at the critics, they at best, are giving a free pass to those men/women calling themselves governments.  As with standing, that is not my rule, that is political public relations, sacred writ called “law”.  There are no exceptions to this, either there is a valid cause of action or there isn’t.  If there isn’t, there is no jurisdiction.  There are no exceptions because the plaintiff is called the “STATE”.  This is laid out in detail in my standing cross reference. [...]

  3. Adam Has Another Ticket Kicked in California - Unofficial Network Says:

    [...] But when you look at the critics, they at best, are giving a free pass to those men/women calling themselves governments.  As with standing, that is not my rule, that is political public relations, sacred writ called “law”.  There are no exceptions to this, either there is a valid cause of action or there isn’t.  If there isn’t, there is no jurisdiction.  There are no exceptions because the plaintiff is called the “STATE”.  This is laid out in detail in my standing cross reference. [...]

  4. Ticket Kicked Out in Indiana – Cop Blows Off Subpoena Twice | MarcStevens.net Says:

    [...] court that day, there’s no evidence the motion has any merit.”   Yeah, check out the standing cross reference.  And keep this in mind, the prosecutor thought it was and so did the cop.  Remember, it was [...]

  5. Corpus Delicti is the Key | Sovereign Tactics- Unplug yourself from the Matrix- Wake up! Says:

    [...] http://marcstevens.net/articles/standing-cross-reference.html [...]

  6. NSP – Mar 30, 2013 - Unofficial Network Says:

    [...] the supreme court’s recent and recurring position on standing and jurisdiction as discussed here on the #NSP, and US v Bailey: the complaint is not [...]

  7. NSP – Mar 30, 2013 – Co-host: JT - Unofficial Network Says:

    [...] the supreme court’s recent and recurring position on standing and jurisdiction as discussed here on the #NSP, and US v Bailey: the complaint is not [...]

  8. NSP - Dec 28, 2013 - Co-hosts: Calvin and JT | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Being accused of sophistry for raising the issue of standing. […]

  9. Motion to Strike/Dismiss Template | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Kentucky) are no valid case/controversy, a lack of standing and no corpus delecti.  The cross-reference is here.   While the motion was written for Arizona, there are equivalents listed for every […]

  10. NSP - Apr 5, 2014 - [LRN.fm Broadcast Version] | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] 5) qualification to give legal opinions/[determinations] <> the prosecutor did not know what corpus delecti is <> told the prosecutor to “shut-up” without generating a contempt of court […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events


Saturday, September 6th 4-7pm EST: Marc will be back at the 'fortified compound' for another original LIVE broadcast. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then you can call into the show at (218)632-9399 or we can skype you in during a break. You'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP group chat where you can engage in some role play to refine your litigation and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up.



Click here to find out how to call-in with your questions and comments, join the Skype group-chat, tune-in to terrestrial and digital broadcasts, use the phone-in listen line, subscribe to the iTunes archive feed, and much more.

------------------------PAYMENT NOTICE------------------------

I'm working on getting a paypal alternative, for now, you can use Dwolla for payments, use marcstevens(at)mail(dot)com

WeAcceptBitcoin

Bitcoin: 1NayJiRhb7gtVcSS4yNn6hxo6TJFPrQgb6









Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here