Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

controversy

Read a random definition: ad damnum clause

A quick definition of controversy:

A controversy is a disagreement between people or groups that needs to be resolved. In the United States, federal courts can only hear cases that involve a real dispute between actual parties. This means that they cannot give opinions on hypothetical situations or cases where there is no disagreement. The controversy must also be current and not something that might happen in the future. Some states allow their highest courts to give opinions on questions from the state legislature, even if there is no controversy. However, federal courts cannot do this because of the rules set out in the U.S. Constitution. There are also other limits on what federal courts can hear, such as cases that are no longer relevant or cases where the person bringing the case does not have a direct interest in the outcome.

A more thorough explanation:

A controversy is a real dispute between two parties that is required for a federal court to have jurisdiction. The U.S Constitution, Article III, section 2, grants federal courts the power to hear certain "cases" and "controversies." This means that federal courts can only resolve legal questions that arise from an actual dispute between real parties.

For example, if two people have a disagreement over a contract, they can bring their case to federal court. However, if someone wants to ask a court for an opinion on a hypothetical situation, they cannot do so because there is no actual dispute.

Controversies must also be ripe, or in current existence, to warrant judicial intervention. This means that a court cannot intervene in a situation that has not yet happened or is not likely to happen. For example, if someone wants to sue a city for a law that they are considering passing, they cannot do so because the law has not yet been passed.

Overall, a controversy is a necessary requirement for a federal court to have jurisdiction and resolve legal disputes between parties.

  • If two companies have a disagreement over a patent, they can bring their case to federal court because there is a real dispute between them.
  • If someone wants to ask a court for an opinion on whether a law is constitutional, they cannot do so because there is no actual dispute between parties.
  • If someone wants to sue a city for a law that they are considering passing, they cannot do so because the controversy is not ripe.

These examples illustrate how a controversy is necessary for a federal court to have jurisdiction and resolve legal disputes between parties.

controlling law | contumacy

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.