LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

friendly suit

Read a random definition: Dole test

A quick definition of friendly suit:

Term: Friendly Suit

Definition: A friendly suit is when two parties agree to go to court together to resolve a legal question that affects them both. They are not enemies, but they want to clarify something in the law. For example, two companies might bring a friendly suit to court to understand a contract better. In a friendly suit, there is no real argument between the parties, and one party controls the case to get a specific result.

A more thorough explanation:

friendly suit

A friendly suit, also known as a collusive suit or action, is a lawsuit brought by two parties who are not enemies, but who agree to go to court to resolve a legal question that affects them both. The parties involved in a friendly suit are not actually in dispute with each other, but they want to clarify the legal interpretation of a contract or resolve a legal issue that affects them both.

Two companies might bring a friendly suit to court in order to clarify the legal interpretation of a contract between them. For example, if two companies have a contract that is unclear about certain terms, they might agree to bring a friendly suit to court to get a judge to interpret the contract and clarify the terms. Another example of a friendly suit might be two friends who agree to go to court to resolve a legal issue that affects them both, such as a dispute over property ownership.

These examples illustrate how a friendly suit is a legal action that is brought by two parties who are not adversaries, but who want to resolve a legal issue that affects them both. The parties involved in a friendly suit are not actually in dispute with each other, but they want to clarify the legal interpretation of a contract or resolve a legal issue that affects them both.

fresh pursuit | friendly witness

General

General chat about the legal profession.

General >T14 Off Topic

👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎

Eggan

21:52

i personally think it should be an 8 year term with a term limit of 3 terms. so 24 years total. and one's position can be given to another candidate as well, doesn't just always go to the incumbent

Eggan

21:52

dont tell me my math is wrong im still tired

KnowledgeableRitzyWasp

21:52

you don’t mess with the zohan is goated

glovediedthisishismom

21:52

fizzy bubbly

shaquilleoatmeal

21:53

@JumpySubsequentDolphin: you want straight up comedy or rom com?

JumpySubsequentDolphin

21:54

hmmm I think the people w me would prefer regular comedy

shaquilleoatmeal

21:54

you gotta reform congress, youd see the changes in the supreme court kick in

Eggan

21:55

not to doom but there's no way conservatives would vote for a term limit on SCOTUS if the majority is going to rule in favor of conservative interests in a patterned way

Eggan

21:56

for many people in politics, not just conservatives, the ends justify the means and the means could be anti-american if it means achieving a "patriotic" end so to speak

shaquilleoatmeal

21:56

crazy rich asians, due date (older side of movies), hit man

shaquilleoatmeal

21:57

actually scratch all that - watch no hard feelings

KnowledgeableRitzyWasp

21:58

crazy rich asians is cracked

Eggan

21:58

oh its so good

Eggan

21:58

im probably going to take these comedy suggestions because it's just me alone until like december 1 or 2 i forgor

JumpySubsequentDolphin

21:58

@shaquilleoatmeal: my sister in law hated no hard feelings

JumpySubsequentDolphin

21:58

Constance Wu is so beautiful

KnowledgeableRitzyWasp

21:58

i forgor

shaquilleoatmeal

21:59

damn what, i thought it was a funny movie

babycat

22:00

i went to this one club that’s in crazy rich Asians. the rooftop bar

[] texaslawhopefully

22:00

@shaquilleoatmeal: It's not a bad article, but I still don't buy it because (a) I think it glosses over cases like Milligan way too quickly without even going into why there was an ideological split (which there was for a reason and that case did matter) and (b) I think the 3-3-3 court description is also grounded in the difference in jurisprudence between the two groups (and that they aligned on cases like the SFAA one could say more about the facts of the case, than jurisprudential differences)

babycat

22:00

It’s called ce la vie

[] texaslawhopefully

22:03

@shaquilleoatmeal: I’ll also preface, I am a little biased—I’m a big fan of Sara Isgur and David French.

shaquilleoatmeal

22:03

^^ advisory opinions ?

shaquilleoatmeal

22:04

i was trying to get into that with scorp before lsd crashed

shaquilleoatmeal

22:04

not aware of Milligan - what was the split and why

[] texaslawhopefully

22:06

Essentially if an Alabama redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It was 5-4 with Kavanaugh and Robert’s in the majority. A very important case.

[] texaslawhopefully

22:07

@shaquilleoatmeal: yes! I love advisory opinions

[] texaslawhopefully

22:09

@shaquilleoatmeal: https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/merrill-v-milligan-faq/#:~:text=Hogan%20Lovells%20LLP.-,Allen%20v.,Supreme%20Court%20in%20recent%20history.

shaquilleoatmeal

22:09

ahh wait i vaguely remember hearing about this, had to do with black belt and mobil i think? Ill have to go back and read it

shaquilleoatmeal

22:10

haha right on, i listen to advisory opinions during my workout when i get tired of tunes

LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.