When a lawsuit is dismissed on grounds of lack of standing, the word “standing” appears in the dismissal.
None of the three lower courts dismissed Voeltz v. Obama on grounds of standing. Therefore there is no possible way that an appeal could be heard by the Florida Supreme Court to rule on standing when that was not an issue in original jurisdiction courts.
The Supreme Court rejected Voeltz’ request for a Writ of Mandamus on the grounds that he was not legally entitled to such relief.
I don’t know what could be clearer:
“Because petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right to the relief requested, he is not entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is hereby denied. See Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000).”
What that means in standard English is that Voeltz failed to convince the Florida Supreme Court that he was legally entitled to receive a Writ of Mandamus.
Standing was not the issue. Voeltz simply failed to make a convincing argument that a Writ of Mandamus to compel a rehearing in the lower court was warranted.
According to whom?? The principle is in effect whether it’s stated or not. I showed the definition and how that fit the exact verbiage used in the denial.