Case Citator › Warth v. Seldin

Warth v. Seldin

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
422 U.S. 490
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
236 of 236
Citing cases (total)
10,850
Treatment dates
1996
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. Warth v. Seldin remains binding on Article III and other standing principles, but Congress displaced its prudential obstacle to associational damages suits under the WARN Act. All 236 flagged citations have been read, and the 1 confirmed treatment is listed below.
More on how this was screened

United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc. held that Congress authorized unions to seek their members' WARN Act damages and removed the judicially fashioned limitation. The other citing opinions applied Warth, reported another authority's treatment, addressed unrelated precedent, or presented rejected arguments.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

10,850 later cases cite Warth v. Seldin; 236 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Warth v. Seldin?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Superseded by Statute

  • The WARN Act displaced Warth's prudential obstacle to an association seeking damages on behalf of its members.

    United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Because Congress authorized the union to sue for its members’ damages, and because the only impediment to that suit is a general limitation, judicially fashioned and prudentially imposed, there is no question that Congress may abrogate the impediment. As we noted in Warth, prudential limitations are rules of “judicial self-governance” that “Congress may remove ... by statute.” 422 U. S., at 509. It has done so without doubt in this instance.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Warth v. Seldin and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace