Case of Controversy Requirement

The standing doctrine affects the justifiability of a cause of action in that the court must ensure the parties to a lawsuit such as a plaintiff and a defendant are the real part in interest who will be involved in the legal process (Mintz, Rosenberg & Bakken, 2010).  For the cause of an action to be justified,  the person who presents complains to the court must show ‘distinct and palpable injury' in other words,  the plaintiff should avoid presenting abstract and generalized issues but rather, he or she should present the real and concrete challenged act (Mintz, Rosenberg & Bakken, 2010). In addition, the legal case presented should be fairly traceable so that the court can take criminal actions.  However, the case may be referred to as a ‘standing case' if the court lacks sufficient connection to the challenged action. Parties who report a threated injury must also be required to admit palpable injuries so that the court may give a judicial resolution (Mintz, Rosenberg & Bakken, 2010). According to the standing doctrine, some cases will remain standing if the plaintiff does not present actual injury and causation, for the case to be subjected to the judicial resolution.

 The ripeness concept also affects the justifiability of the cause of action in that for the court to proceed with the legal actions or for the court to take legal reasoning and review the evidence, there must be sufficient facts for the presented legal case (Mintz, Rosenberg & Bakken, 2010). The dispute must be sufficiently developed and real, to avoid case dismissal. For the case to be heard, the plaintiff must present the real injury or a threat since the court needs adequate factual records before making a judicial opinion (Mintz, Rosenberg & Bakken, 2010). The court does not use a generalized legal rule but it focuses on enhancing accuracy in making a decision and for this reason, constitutional ripeness is an integral element.

For the court to effectively and efficiently manage cases, it must have a constitutional power and authority, recognize the statutory time limits and should only address adversarial cases (Weinberg, 2006). An example of a case where these components are present is the case between Warth v. Seldin. The party that filed a lawsuit to seek a legal remedy was against the planning and zoning members of the Penfield town and the Rochester city. The filed legal case was that the government appointed members for planning and controlling the physical development and commercial activities excluded low and middle-income earners from living in these cities (Weinberg, 2006). The case was presented in the U.S district court for trial but the case was dismissed for lack of standing to sue. In other words, the plaintiff presented generalized grievances and they could not show real injury done by the accused party (Weinberg, 2006). The United State District Court has the Congress power to address cases, it adheres to the statutory rights and it addresses new cases.  Despite these components, there were some variables that hindered the court from proceeding with the case. The plaintiff did not provide sufficient connection of the challenged action to allow the court to make a decision.

The statute of limitations is an important concept and it may help obtain a relief. This is because the maximum time set before the legal proceedings will give both the plaintiff and the defendant enough time to find the best evidence to defend the lawsuit (Engel, 2003). In specific,  the plaintiff will present a valid cause of action and during the legal proceeding, both the complainant and the defendant will obtain a relief or in other words, the judges will make a court order and this means that the accuser and the accused to obtain judicial relief.

 

            An example where the Statute of Limitation expired is when my father borrowed funds from a bank. Due to unpaid debts, the creditor filed a lawsuit but the court's decision was that the debt had passed the statute of limitation or it had expired and no further action was taken.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Engel, G. T. (2003). Civil fines and penalties debt: Review of u.s. customs service's management

and collection. Place of publication not identified: Diane Pub Co.

 

Mintz, J. A., Rosenberg, R. H., & Bakken, L. A. (2010). Fundamentals of municipal finance.

Chicago, Ill: American Bar Association, Section of State and Local Government Law.

Weinberg, P. (2006). Environmental law: Cases and materials. University Press of America