The concept of judicial standing, often called just "standing" or "locus standi," refers to the right of a litigant to bring suit.
Standing is a prerequisite in order to bring suit in a court of law, and means that the litigant must have been harmed or is in imminent danger of being harmed by actions of the defendant, and that the court can provide redress. If the court determines that the litigant lacks standing -- in other words, that the litigant has not been harmed nor is in any danger of imminent harm by actions of the defendant -- the court will likely dismiss the case.
Basic judicial requirements.
It's judicial powers and its' standing army.
Lawyers are often neither a part of each branch, so there is no violation of separation of powers.
To establish judicial standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate three key requirements: (1) Injury in Fact - the plaintiff must have suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent; (2) Causation - there must be a direct connection between the injury and the conduct of the defendant, meaning the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant's actions; and (3) Redressability - a favorable court decision must be able to provide a remedy that will address the injury suffered by the plaintiff.
A judicial preceding can be a "judicial hearing" or a trial.
judicial branch
Unless I am missing the point of the question, I'm not understanding what the questioner is driving at. Enforcement of Judicial rulings by the authorities, is an EXTENSION of Judicial power NOT a a restriction of it.
No governors have judicial power. That power rests with the judicial branch.
No governors have judicial power. That power rests with the judicial branch.
leads the judicial branch
All levels of courts fall within the judicial branch.
there is no such thing as judicial criticism.