Автор: Татьяна Братко
Издательство: Юстицинформ
Жанр: Юриспруденция, право
isbn: 978-5-7205-1401-3
isbn:
196
Подробнее об этом см., в частности: Taxpayer’s Suit to Enjoin Elections Alleged Not to Be Legally Authorized [Electronic resource] // Harvard Law Review. 1915. Vol. 28, Issue 3. P 309–312. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1325686 (дата обращения: 25.01.2017); Taxpayer’s Action Against State Officials To Prevent Alleged Unconstitutional Use of State Funds [Electronic resource] // Fordham Law Review. 1948. Vol. 17, Issue 1. P. 107–113. URL: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/ vol17/iss1/6 (дата обращения: 25.01.2017); Abramowitz A. A Remedy for Every Right [Electronic resource]: What Federal Courts Can Learn from California’s Taxpayer Standing // California Law Review. 2010. Vol. 98, Issue 5. P. 1595–1629. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25799948 (дата обращения: 25.01.2017).
197
См.: Dworkin R. The Supreme Court Phalanx [Electronic resource] // The New York Review of Books. 2007. Vol. 54, Issue 14. URL: http://www.nybooks.com/ articles/2007/09/27/the-supreme-court-phalanx/ (дата обращения: 25.01.2017).
198
См., например: Zelinsky E. A. Putting State Courts in the Constitutional Driver’s Seat [Electronic resource]: State Taxpayer Standing After Cuno and Winn // Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. 2012. Vol. 40, Issue 1. P 2. URL: http://www. hastingsconlawquarterly.org/archives/V40/Zelinsky_Final_Online.pdf (дата обращения: 25.01.2017).
199
Подробнее об этих доктринах см.: Staudt N. C. Modeling Standing [Electronic resource] // NewYork University Law Review. 2004. Vol. 79, Issue 2. P 626632. URL: http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-79-2-Staudt.pdf (дата обращения: 25.01.2017).
200
См., в частности: Crampton v. Zabriskie, 101 U. S. 601 (1879) [Electronic resource] // Justia U. S. Supreme Court Center: [website]. URL: https://supreme. justia.com/cases/federal/us/101/601/case.html (дата обращения: 25.01.2017); Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U. S. 291 (1899) [Electronic resource] // Justia U. S. Supreme Court Center: [website]. URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/ federal/us/175/291/case.html (дата обращения: 25.01.2017); Heim v. McCall, 239 U. S. 175 (1915) [Electronic resource] // Justia U. S. Supreme Court Center: [website]. URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/239/175/case.
html (дата обращения: 25.01.2017); Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1 (1947) [Electronic resource] // Justia U. S. Supreme Court Center: [website]. URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/330/1/case.html (дата обращения: 25.01.2017); McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203 (1948) [Electronic resource] // Justia U. S. Supreme Court Center: [website]. URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/333/203/case.html (дата обращения: 25.01.2017); Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306 (1952) [Electronic resource] // Justia U. S. Supreme Court Center: [website]. URL: https://supreme.justia.com/ cases/federal/us/343/306/case.html (дата обращения: 25.01.2017); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 (1962) [Electronic resource] // Justia U. S. Supreme Court Center: [website]. URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/421/ case.html (дата обращения: 25.01.2017).
201
См.: Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447 (1923) [Electronic resource] // Justia U. S. Supreme Court Center: [website]. URL: https:// supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/262/447/case.html (дата обращения:
25.01.2017).
202
Подробнее об этом см.: Staudt N. C. Modeling Standing [Electronic resource] // New York University Law Review. 2004. Vol. 79, Issue 2. P 632. URL: http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-79-2-Staudt. pdf (дата обращения: 25.01.2017).
203
См.: Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 429 (1952) [Electronic resource] // Justia U. S. Supreme Court Center: [website]. URL: https://supreme. justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/429/case.html (дата обращения: 25.01.2017); ASARCO v. Kadish, 490 U. S. 605 (1989) [Electronic resource] // Justia U. S. Supreme Court Center: [website]. URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/ us/490/605/case.html (дата обращения: 25.01.2017).
204
Подробнее о правилах, касающихся процессуальной правоспособности налогоплательщиков в судах американских штатов, см., например: Urquhart J. G. Disfavored Constitution, Passive Virtues? Linking State Constitutional Fiscal Limitations And Permissive Taxpayer Standing Doctrines [Electronic resource] // Fordham Law Review. 2012. Vol. 81, Issue 3. P 1263–1314. URL: http://fordhamlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/pdfs/Vol_81/Urquhart_ December.pdf (дата обращения: 25.01.2017); Zelinsky E. A. Putting State Courts in the Constitutional Driver’s Seat [Electronic resource]: State Taxpayer Standing After Cuno and Winn // Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. 2012. Vol. 40, Issue 1. P. 36–46. URL: http://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.org/archives/V40/Zelinsky_Final_ Online.pdf (дата обращения: 25.01.2017).
205
The Code of Civil Procedure of California [Electronic resource] // California Legislative Information: [website]. URL: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/ codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=CCP&tocTitle=+Code+of+Civil+Procedure+-+CCP (дата обращения: 25.01.2017).
206
См.: Blair v. Pitchess, 5 Cal. 3d 258, 486 P 2d 1242 (1971) [Electronic resource] // Justia U. S. Supreme Court Center: [website]. URL: http://law. justia.com/cases/califomia/supreme-court/3d/5/258.html (дата обращения:
25.01.2017).
207
СКАЧАТЬ