 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Untitled
editThis article is currently a very brief discussion of the term 'justiciability' as used in the jurisprudence of the United States. If other countries use the term, or if this would be an appropriate translation of a term used in another country, we should simply break the article into sections for each country. Matthew K 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
---
This is a US centric term. Name one country that has issues of Jurisdiction and Justiciability. If they do, It's a model of the US court system.
68.46.237.26 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's nice to get out of your own backyard once in a while. Canada's Supreme Court (which has an original reference jurisdiction) has dealt with issues of justiciablity a few times, notably in the secession reference case, and the principles they used don't seem to have anything in common with the American model. 24.36.65.16 16:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Justiciability, accouding to the Black Law Dictionary is the quality or state of being appropriate or suitable for adjudication by a court. (RT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.239.114.141 (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The reason the term is mainly U.S. centric is that U.S. federal courts, unlike national courts in most other countries of the world, refuse to grant advisory opinions. Where a foreign court might offer an opinion to a hypothetical legal problem or question, U.S. courts will opt to say nothing until there is a real conflict. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)