would eliminate the particular good in question could ever have their substantive claims adjudicated. See, e.g., Common Cause (dismissing consumer claim on causation grounds after having found injury-in-fact). 13 . For example: do mortals alone bear full responsibility for creating cars? Or does the chain of causation extend to a higher being that predetermines all? Ontological concerns notwithstanding, the specification of divine creation as a determinant factor in standing doctrine is problematic under Establishment Clause doctrine. See Edwards v. Aguillard, - U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 96 L.Ed.2d 510 (1987); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 89 S.Ct. 266, 21 L.Ed.2d 228 (1968). 14 . See, e.g., Watt v. Energy Action Educational Foundation, 454 U.S. at 161, 102 S.Ct. at 212 (1981) (<HOLDING>); Bryant v. Yellen, 447 U.S. 352, 368, 100
holding that petitioner did not purposefully avail himself of the privilege of conducting business in california or of the benefits and protections of california laws where petitionerguarantor had executed a guaranty in florida guaranteeing payments to a california partnership holding that california had standing to complain that it was not receiving enough income from offshore royalties because the secretary of the interior had refused to experiment with noncash bonus bidding alternatives even though secretary could after experimenting in other locations continue to employ cash bids in california recognizing a hypothetical situation where california law left a party free to sue on a claim in maryland even after the claim was precluded in california because the california statute of limitations had expired recognizing that california has a valid interest in protecting a california company from copyright infringement holding that the ninth circuit is bound by the california supreme courts interpretation of california law