Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

justiciability

Read a random definition: Ellenborough's Act

A quick definition of justiciability:

Justiciability is about what kinds of cases a court can hear. If a case is "nonjusticiable," then the court cannot hear it. To be justiciable, the court must be deciding a real problem, the person bringing the case must have a good reason to do so, and the issue must be ready to be decided. The court will not hear a case if it is just giving advice, if the person bringing the case has not been harmed, if the issue is not ready to be decided, or if the issue is too political.

A more thorough explanation:

Overview: Justiciability refers to the types of cases that a court can hear and decide. If a case is "nonjusticiable," then the court cannot hear it. To be justiciable, the court must not be offering an advisory opinion, the plaintiff must have standing, and the issues must be ripe but neither moot nor violative of the political question doctrine. These issues are all up to the discretion of the court that is deciding the case.

Advisory Opinion: An advisory opinion is a court's nonbinding interpretation of a legal question. Federal courts can only decide actual controversies, as required by the Case and Controversy Clause of the Constitution. Some state courts can issue advisory opinions under limited circumstances, but these circumstances are usually specified in the state's constitution.

Standing: Standing refers to the ability of a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit in court. The plaintiff must have suffered an actual harm caused by the defendant, and the harm must be redressable. For example, if someone sues a company for selling a defective product that caused them harm, they have standing to bring the lawsuit.

Ripeness: A claim is ripe when the facts of the case have matured into an actual controversy. A case is not ripe if the harm to the plaintiff has not yet occurred. For example, if someone sues a company for a potential harm that may happen in the future, the case is not ripe because the harm has not yet occurred.

Mootness: A claim is moot if the relevant issues have already been resolved. For example, if someone sues a company for a harm that has already been fixed, the case is moot because there is no longer a controversy to decide.

Political Question Doctrine: Under the political question doctrine, a court will refuse to hear a case if the relevant issues are politically charged. For example, if someone sues the government over a political decision, the court may refuse to hear the case because it is a political question that should be decided by the elected officials, not the courts.

Example: John sues a company for selling him a defective product that caused him harm. John has standing to bring the lawsuit because he suffered an actual harm caused by the company. The case is ripe because the harm has already occurred, and it is not moot because the harm has not been resolved. The court can hear this case because it is justiciable.

justice system | justiciable

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
13:34
i don't think it has a detrimental effect on your chances of admission
13:34
but also you don't need to tell them anything so lol
Can y'all help me understand something lol. What does it mean for an app to "go complete"? Is that when the school has reviewed it and made a decision?
13:35
Na, it's when they have all the required information
Gotcha. So what would be the difference between received and completed?
Does complete entail like the app + LORs?
13:35
correct
That makes sense. Thank you!
13:36
complete basically means they've acknowledged receipt and it's ready to go under review whenever they start the deliberative process
Quillinit
13:40
I still haven't had Chicago or Cornell go complete, but I think that's just how they be
13:41
when did you submit
CaringEquableGuppy
13:42
How do you know when an application is complete? Is it on LSAC or the school's portal?
13:43
it'll be on the school-specific portal
Quillinit
13:44
when they opened
Quillinit
13:45
they both say something along the lines of "received and waiting to be processed"
13:48
anyone have good resources for revising a personal statement for reuse after applying with it last cycle?
13:49
Any guesses when Cornell and Penn CRS fee waivers will go out?
13:51
@Quillinit: from my recollection, chicago and cornell collapse complete/UR1 into a single step, so they may simply not be ready to begin reviewing applications
13:52
i think it's fair to assume, barring a handful of schools like UVA, most schools won't begin reviewing applications in earnest until the beginning of next month at the earliest, so it wouldn't be surprising to hear that applications are just sitting in the queue
13:54
@oakenrays: I was just gonna write a new one personally but I think you want to make it recognizably different from your previous PS
13:56
@baddestbunny: definitely agree that some revision and additional information is warranted but, my why law is the same... I guess just tell the same story in a different way
14:03
ugh fineeee I'll write a new stupid essay
14:07
yeah I told my last essay about a formative experience and am trying to update it now to be about what I’ve learned since that experience
recently wrapped up interview
i re-wrote my PS this cycle when I reapplied
fire drill at work
so lit
Quillinit
15:10
oh fun @info-man, Chicago just changed to complete today, so we'll see
boglue
15:23
do you have to have lawhub advantage for the lsd status checker to work
lawhub kind of a freaky ass name now that i think about it
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.