Update

You are looking at 1-20 of 122 entries  for:

  • All: justiciable questions x
clear all

View:

Overview

justiciable questions

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that federal courts may deal only with cases or questions that are justiciable, that is, questions “appropriate for judicial determination” (Aetna Life ...

justiciable questions

justiciable questions   Reference library

The Oxford Guide to the United States Government

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2002
Subject:
Social sciences, Politics
Length:
200 words

... questions The U.S. Supreme Court has held that federal courts may deal only with cases or questions that are justiciable, that is, questions “appropriate for judicial determination” ( Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth , 1937 ). In the Aetna case Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes discussed the differences between justiciable questions or issues and those not justiciable. He emphasized that justiciable questions involve a “real and substantial controversy” that can be resolved by a conclusive decision of a court of law. The U.S. Supreme Court...

justiciable questions

justiciable questions  

Reference type:
Overview Page
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that federal courts may deal only with cases or questions that are justiciable, that is, questions “appropriate for judicial determination” (Aetna Life Insurance Co. ...
justiciability

justiciability  

Reference type:
Overview Page
This term ‘has acquired popularity with politicians as well as with lawyers. It is, however, used ambiguously to designate the suitability of a dispute for settlement, both as to law ...
Ripeness and Immediacy

Ripeness and Immediacy  

Reference type:
Overview Page
Subject:
Law
A family of jurisdictional problems lumped together under the category of justiciability raise the question whether the challenged litigation can be resolved by federal courts, which are limited to ...
Davis v. Bandemer

Davis v. Bandemer  

Reference type:
Overview Page
Subject:
Law
478 U.S. 109 (1986), argued 7 Oct. 1985, decided 30 June 1986: for justiciability by vote of 6 to 3, White for the Court, O’Connor, Burger, and Rehnquist in dissent; against merits by vote of 7 to 2, ...
political questions

political questions  

Reference type:
Overview Page
Subject:
Law
The Supreme Court may decide not to accept a case because it involves what it considers to be political questions, which are outside the scope of the Court's authority. Political ...
Political Thicket

Political Thicket  

Reference type:
Overview Page
Subject:
Law
Phrase that originated in Justice Felix Frankfurter's opinion for the Court, although he spoke only for two other justices, in Colegrove v. Green (1946), in which he argued that federal ...
Treaties and Treaty Power

Treaties and Treaty Power  

Reference type:
Overview Page
Subject:
Law
In one sense, the Supreme Court has played a minor role in charting the contours of the treaty power and in interpreting treaty terms. No part of any treaty has ...
Dismissal of 1975

Dismissal of 1975  

Reference type:
Overview Page
Subject:
Law
The events of 11 November 1975, when Governor‐General John Kerr brought the Whitlam era to an end by dismissing Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, left many unresolved questions. Two of them ...
Wesberry v. Sanders

Wesberry v. Sanders  

Reference type:
Overview Page
Subject:
Law
376 U.S. 1 (1964), argued 18–19 Nov. 1963, decided 17 Feb. 1964 by vote of 7 to 2; Black for the Court, Clark concurring in part and dissenting in part, Harlan in dissent. This is the second of the ...
standing to sue

standing to sue  

Reference type:
Overview Page
Subject:
Law
A person who has the right to bring legal action against another party has standing to sue that party. A party who is injured by another party has standing to ...
Gomillion v. Lightfoot

Gomillion v. Lightfoot  

Reference type:
Overview Page
Subject:
Law
364 U.S. 339 (1960), argued 18–19 Oct. 1960, decided 14 Nov. 1960 by vote of 9 to 0; Frankfurter for the Court, Douglas and Whittaker concurring. Black voters charged that an Alabama law, changing ...
appellate jurisdiction

appellate jurisdiction  

Reference type:
Overview Page
Subject:
Law
The power of a judge to hear appeals from a previous court decision. See feature The Appeals System.
Baker v. Carr

Baker v. Carr  

Reference type:
Overview Page
Subject:
Law
(USA, 1962)The first of a series of Supreme Court decisions which undermined the custom of manipulating legislative apportionments at state and federal levels for political or racial purposes. ...
elections

elections  

Reference type:
Overview Page
Subject:
Law
N.1 The process of choosing by vote a member of a representative body, such as the House of Commons or a local authority. For the House of Commons, a general election involving all UK constituencies ...
advisory Opinions

advisory Opinions  

Reference type:
Overview Page
‘The [International] Court [of Justice] may give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of whatever body may be authorized by or in accordance with the Charter ...
Justiciability

Justiciability   Reference library

William M. Wiecek

The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2 ed.)

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2005
Subject:
Law
Length:
246 words

...specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character” (p. 241). Justiciability is a conceptual umbrella covering several related doctrines or problems, including standing , mootness , and ripeness . It prohibited federal courts from rendering advisory opinions and, until the 1934 Declaratory Judgment Act (upheld in Aetna ), declaratory judgments as well. It excludes collusive suits and political questions from federal jurisdiction. Conceptual problems of justiciability helped frame the issues in the leading reapportionment case of Baker ...

political questions

political questions   Reference library

The Oxford Guide to the United States Government

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2002
Subject:
Social sciences, Politics
Length:
325 words

...is a limitation that the Court has imposed upon its own powers of judicial review. Only the Supreme Court itself decides which cases involve political questions, thereby disqualifying them for review and judgment by the Court. Such political questions are referred to as non-justiciable. Justiciable questions, by contrast, are those the Supreme Court accepts as appropriate for its review and judgment. In Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph v. Oregon ( 1912 ), the Court faced an issue that it decided was outside the scope of judicial review. The issue...

dispute

dispute   Reference library

Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law (3 ed.)

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2009
Subject:
Law, International Law
Length:
368 words

...that some disputes are justiciable and others are non-justiciable, but ‘probably today most writers would regard it as depending upon the attitude of the parties: if, whatever the subject matter of the dispute may be, what the parties seek is their legal rights, the dispute is justiciable: if, on the other hand, one of them at least is not content to demand its legal rights, but demands the satisfaction of some interest of its own even though this may require a change in the existing legal situation, the dispute is non-justiciable’: Brierly, The Law of...

Ripeness and Immediacy

Ripeness and Immediacy   Reference library

James B. Stoneking

The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2 ed.)

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2005
Subject:
Law
Length:
254 words

...and Immediacy A family of jurisdictional problems lumped together under the category of justiciability raise the question whether the challenged litigation can be resolved by federal courts, which are limited to deciding only cases and controversies by Article III , section 2, of the Constitution. Among these are questions of mootness , ripeness, standing , collusive suits, and advisory opinions . Most of these problems have both constitutional and prudential dimensions. Ripeness is the “front‐end” counterpart to mootness. When a case has...

View: