LIMITATIONS IN

OBTAINING
RELIEF
INTRODUCTION
What do you think are some situations in which relief cannot be obtained?
INTRODUCTION
 As you generally know, when there is a
dispute the parties wanting to resolve it
usually go to court
 In most cases they are able to settle it out of
court or through using judicial remedies
 However, there is a percentage of cases in
which the courts have no jurisdiction to
decide or which the courts can offer no
opinion
 This PPT will discuss the various limitations
in obtaining relief
GENERAL
LIMITATIONS
What are some of the most common limitations that frequently appear in the real
world?
CASE OR CONTROVERSY
Question: Do you think the
Supreme Court will answer the
chief?
 To be within the federal judicial power a
matter must be a “case” or “controversy”
 The case or controversy requirement is
interpreted by the Supreme Court as not
allowing the federal courts to give advice
to anybody
 Let us assume that a police chief has
developed a new strategy for apprehending
terrorists
 He sends a letter to the Supreme Court asking
whether his new method violates the 4th
amendment
CASE OR CONTROVERSY
 The Supreme Court will not answer the chief
Case or
Controversy
based on the fact that the chief is asking a
hypothetical question, not a legal one
Is the question
 If the police chief implements this new hypothetical or
strategy and it ends in an arrest then that legal?
would be a matter for the courts
 Some state governments permit the state It if is hypothetical If it is legal then the Some state
supreme court to give advisory opinions to the court will not wheels of justice governments allow
answer. are set in motion. courts to advise
government officials government
 In this capacity the court only acts as an officials
adviser
JUSTICIABILITY
In order to be decided by a court
a case must be ripe …
You wouldn’t eat bananas 1,2, 3,
4,5, or 7, but would eat banana 6
since it is ripe
 Only cases that are justiciable can be
decided by the courts based on their merits
 To be justiciable a case must be well suited
for determination by the courts
 The doctrines of ripeness and standing help
determine if a case is justiciable
 A ripeness inquiry focuses on whether a case is
ready for determination by the courts
 A challenge to a party’s standing focuses on
whether the plaintiff who files the lawsuit is
the right person to do so
VIDEOS
 Ripeness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y46oieDwb-Y
 Standing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LyB0Tcwlag
 Case or Controversy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6js-ZOGkuo
MOOTNESS

 Moot cases are outside of judicial power

because there is no case or controversy
aspect
 Mootness is an aspect of ripeness, in that
there is not reason to try a case if there has
not been a direct adverse effect on a party
POLITICAL QUESTIONS
 The constitutional separation of powers
declares that the judiciary is not entitled to
decide matter better suited for the other
branches of government
 The political questions doctrine states that
the legislative and executive branches are
entrusted with certain functions and these
fall outside of the jurisdiction of courts
 This also ensures that the courts do not
become too powerful as was the original
purpose of the separation of powers
ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE
 The judicially created Act of State Doctrine
provides that American courts should not
determine whether acts committed by
other countries are right of wrong
 Let’s say that an American manufacturer's
merchandise is confiscated by a foreign
dictator
 The American company files suit in an
American court,
 The court would refuse to make any statement

 The reason is that any judicial opinion

would have no effect on the country
STATUE OF LIMITATIONS
 There is a certain time period in which a civil
action must be brought for claims or rights
to be enforced
 This law is known as the statue of
limitations
 The reason for this is so that the opposing
party had a reasonable amount of time to
defend
 Another reason is that with time evidence may
be destroyed
 Also, as time goes on memories fade and
witnesses may die or move
 STATUE OF LIMITATIONS
 If a plaintiff brings an action after the statue
Statue of of limitations runs out, then the defendant
Limitations
may plead statue of limitations as a defense
 Generally once the statue of limitations
begins to run, it continues to run until the
After Time Before Time time runs out
Runs Out Runs Out
 However, some laws also contain a saving
clause
 These state that under specific circumstances,
the time may be extended for a prescribed
Otherwise,
May contain a Plaintiff is free amount of additional time
defendant may
saving clause to sue
not be sued
VIDEOS
 Political Questions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuvDgPOMhr4
 Mootness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMmzP8aYgw8
 Act of State Doctrine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elaxvpQBntI
 Statue of Limitations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zGS-Ys-R6Q
DEBATE
Debate (Discussion) 2 min.:
 Statue of limitations completely take away the power for courts to decide matter

Do you agree or disagree with the statue of limitations?

EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF
LACHES
 As you probably know a lot of American
legal culture come from English law
 One of the traditional equitable doctrines is
laches
 This doctrine is used to deny someone
equitable remedies or remedies that are
flexible punishments
 When a court orders a defendant to complete
part of a contract instead of paying a fine
 These are mainly used in non- compliance
cases for a breach of contract
CLAIM PRECLUSION
 The doctrine of claim preclusion is based on
the idea that a plaintiff should not be able to
be sued twice for the same reason
 For example, if a plaintiff sues for damages
caused by a car crash, he should not be able
to sue for those same reasons again
 The loser may not bring a new suit against
the winner for the same claim in court
CLAIM PRECLUSION
Claim
 There are two conditions that must be met Preclusion
for claim preclusion to apply:
 Identity of the Parties
 Identity of the parties means that parties to a
successive lawsuit must not be the same or in
privity with the parties of the original suit Identity of the Identity of the
 Privity also exists in the other cases such as when
parties Claims
someone dies, the new executor of the estate
take their place in court
 Identity of Claims
 Identity of the claims, means that for claim The parties may
The claims may
preclusion to apply, the claim-or cause of action- not be the same Or in privity
not be the same
must be the same as the original suit …
VIDEOS
 Equitable Doctrine of Laches

https://uslawessentials.com/2014122what-is-claim-preclusion/
 Claim Preclusion

https://uslawessentials.com/2014122what-is-claim-preclusion/
 IMMUNITY FROM
LEGAL ACTION
What is immunity?
WHAT IS IMMUNITY FROM
LEGAL ACTION?
 The law provides immunity from legal
action in certain cases when it is thought to
be in the best interest of the public
 Immunities are an exception to the general
rule, that remedies must be provided for the
every wrong
 This is commonly seen for foreign officials,
the government, government officials, and
between family members
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
 It is the basic principle that a government
cannot be sued without its expressed
consent
 When a person sues the government they are
actually suing the tax-payers themselves,
as the payment of judgements comes out of
public funds
 The U.S. government allowed itself to be
sued in the 1887 Tucker Act and the 1946
Federal Tort Claims Act
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
 State governments also have the right to
sovereign immunity
 A state many not be sued if it is in the
discharge of its official duties
 However, they may be sued if the state
engages in an activity that can be carried out
by a corporation
 For example, a state loses immunity and may be
sued if the provide power or other services

 Courts generally disagree with the use of

immunity and are trying to move for its
abolishment
DEBATE
Debate (Discussion) 2min:
 The government sometimes makes mistakes or acts in ways that are not allowed
 Under sovereign immunity the government is immune to all legal action against them
 Then how will the government be checked if there is not way the public can ‘punish’ the
government for mistakes

Do you agree of disagree with sovereign immunity?

IMMUNITY OF
GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS
 Officials of government are afforded
immunity because they will be more likely to
fully carry out their duties
 For example, prosecutors are guaranteed
immunity when they decide who to
prosecute
 This immunity applies only when officials act
to accomplish their duties or in the
discharge of their duties
TYPES OF IMMUNITY
 Types of Immunity of Officials
 Legislative and Executive Officials
 These officials are afforded immunity while in the
discharge of their duties
 Judicial Officials
 Judges are afforded immunity when they exercise
Police Officers
their judicial powers regardless of motives or Officers of the
good faith Law
 Judges are not afforded immunity from civil suit Judges
for non-judicial acts Immunity
 Police Officers Legislative and
 Police officers are afforded immunity because of Lawmakers Executive
the nature of their work Branches
 The immunity of a police officer is not applied if
the legality of the officers conduct is something a
well trained police should know not to do
DEBATE
Debate (Discussion) 2min:
 Police officers are mostly immune to legal action while they are in the field
 However, sometimes they do make mistakes that result in injury, death or worse

Do you disagree or agree with immunity for police officers?

IMMUNITY AMONG FAMILY
MEMBERS
 Under the doctrine of interposal immunity,
spouses are not allowed to sue each other
for negligence or intentional torts
 Under the doctrine of parental immunity
un-emancipated minors may not sue their
parents for negligence or intentional torts
 This is because of the term In loco parentis,
which means that parents may raise their child
without interference of the government
DEBATE
Debate (Discussion) 2min:
 Sometimes parents go way out of line to punish their children as shown in abuse cases
 Under parental immunity the right to sue is completely taken away

Do you agree or disagree with parental immunity?

IMMUNITY THROUGH
CONTRACT
 If parties legally sign a contract and agree to
not sue each other then, parties may not sue
each other if something happens
 This is asserting the immunity of both parties
 However, this is generally disfavored by
courts as a remedy may not be provided for a
wrong