Also known as: individualized harms · particularized injury
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An injury that affects a plaintiff in a personal and distinct manner rather than as a generalized grievance shared equally by the public at large or solely through harm to another entity.
Iris Irons filed suit in federal court challenging a statute that she claimed the government was administering unlawfully. She alleged only that the government was failing to follow the law and that this failure affected all citizens equally. The court dismissed the action because Iris had not alleged any concrete and particularized injury to herself.
Interlink Communications owned Grand Central Terminal and challenged New York City's refusal to allow construction above the terminal. The city had applied its landmarks law only to this parcel while leaving surrounding properties unaffected. The court examined whether the restriction imposed substantial individualized harm on the owner rather than a burden shared by all property owners in the district.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ingrid Innes and other residents who used a river for recreation sued a factory that was discharging pollutants upstream. They alleged that the discharges directly impaired their ability to fish and swim at particular sites they frequented. The court found standing because the plaintiffs had shown harm that was concrete and particular to their own activities rather than a diffuse injury to the environment at large.
Isaac Irving and other low-income individuals who lived outside Penfield sued the town over its zoning rules. They alleged that the rules prevented construction of affordable housing but did not claim they had ever applied for or been denied a permit in Penfield. The court held they lacked standing because they had not shown any individualized harm traceable to the town's actions.
Iain Irons, a recipient of funds under a canceled appropriation, challenged the President's use of the line item veto. He alleged that the veto directly eliminated a project from which he would have benefited. The court recognized standing because the plaintiff had identified a personal and particularized loss rather than an abstract institutional injury shared by all citizens.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts sued the EPA for failing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles. It alleged that the emissions were causing sea-level rise that threatened specific coastal property owned by the state. The court found standing because Massachusetts had demonstrated a particularized injury to its own sovereign and proprietary interests.
A plaintiff must show a concrete and particularized injury that affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way. Generalized grievances shared equally by all citizens, such as an interest in having the government follow the law, do not qualify. Congress cannot create standing through citizen-suit provisions when no individualized harm exists.
Supporting sources
A member may sue directly when the member pleads and proves an actual or threatened injury that is not solely the result of an injury to the LLC. Harm that targets only one member's profit share or personal economic interests, while leaving the entity's overall revenue unchanged, supports a direct claim rather than a derivative one.
Supporting sources
No. A bare procedural violation of a statute is insufficient without a concrete injury or material risk of harm to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must show more than an abstract or technical breach divorced from any actual or imminent personal consequence.
Supporting sources
…actions prohibited a beneficial use to which individual parcels had previously been devoted and thus caused substantial individualized harm. Miller v. Schoene , 276 U. S. 272 (1928), is illustrative. In that case, a state entomologist, acting pursuant to a state statute, ordered the claimants to cut down a large number of…