There are three elements of standing in a court of law. A standing is whereby one party can demonstrate and can be able to show enough connection and the harm that it can really cause. The elements occur where the plaintiff has suffered a reasonable and concrete injury, the injury is easily traced to actions of the defendant and also the act of law grants an automatic standing. To start with, the Arpaio case failed because he lacked a standing that he was directly affected by the immigration rule since it could affect the security of his county. It did not cause a direct injury to his way of surviving since it was like an assumption given. The second element failed because he did not affirm that the damage was traceable to the deferred actions. He assumed that the undocumented immigrants would cause more crimes and this was not the case. Finally, the last element of standing failed since the court of law had established it and he had no authority. The level of effects did not arise from the immigrants, and in any case, they were to be restricted more cost could be incurred. Therefore, the ruling was against the complaint enabling the federal government to focus their resources on actual society and country’s crimes.
In the case of International Shoe Corporation Vs. Washington, it dealt with how a link between a state and a non-resident corporation could be held liable in that state. It was held that there was no exemption to the rule of law since the commerce was being undertaken within the jurisdiction. They had not been relieved and they were to pay the unemployment compensation fund. The activities carried out by the state and the corporation created a sufficient contact to make it just to conform to the required processes. The tax to be collected was to cater or the employment of internal workmen in the corporation from the state.
The appellate court did not agree on the case of Cingular Vs. Unity Communication Corp. Since it had raised the issue of arbitration three years for the first time after the commencement of the litigation. The time spent in the summary judgment motion could bring about prejudice to any party that could be opposing arbitration. A party failing to assert its freedom to bring about arbitration to a dispute is also key in determining the prejudice. The engagement in pretrial activity was not in accordance with the arbitration. The court established that litigation is desirable before demanding for an arbitration.
On the otIn the case of Campbell v. General Dynamics, the court required that the employee should arbitrate his claim. The court established that there was minimal notice for any prudent employee to recognize the contract nature in the email sent. The emails used did not clearly define the message to the employees that contained terms and conditions binding them to their employment. The email sent to the employees did not require an affirmative response since they had been requested.