Top Law Schools

figured out this is what is giving me the most grief in MC questions, can someone explain the best way to tell the difference to me?

uwb09 wrote:figured out this is what is giving me the most grief in MC questions, can someone explain the best way to tell the difference to me?

timing and standing are case or controversy requirements. injury is one element of standing (injury, cause, redressability), ripeness is part of timing (case must ripe/not moot). If there is no actual injury yet, there may still be sufficient injury for standing if the injury is imminent -- if not, there won't be injury and the case likely will not be ripe for review. If the case is not yet ripe (often because there is no actual injury yet or imminence), like if there is no standing -- there is no case or controversy and thus the court cannot decide on the merits.

lawloser22 wrote:

uwb09 wrote:figured out this is what is giving me the most grief in MC questions, can someone explain the best way to tell the difference to me?

timing and standing are case or controversy requirements. injury is one element of standing (injury, cause, redressability), ripeness is part of timing (case must ripe/not moot). If there is no actual injury yet, there may still be sufficient injury for standing if the injury is imminent -- if not, there won't be injury and the case likely will not be ripe for review. If the case is not yet ripe (often because there is no actual injury yet or imminence), like if there is no standing -- there is no case or controversy and thus the court cannot decide on the merits.

so let's say the hypo show a lack of standing, but "lack of standing" and "lack of case or controversy" are both answers, do I choose the most specific option or chose case or controversy because everything kinda flows up to and wipes that out?

uwb09 wrote:

lawloser22 wrote:

uwb09 wrote:figured out this is what is giving me the most grief in MC questions, can someone explain the best way to tell the difference to me?

timing and standing are case or controversy requirements. injury is one element of standing (injury, cause, redressability), ripeness is part of timing (case must ripe/not moot). If there is no actual injury yet, there may still be sufficient injury for standing if the injury is imminent -- if not, there won't be injury and the case likely will not be ripe for review. If the case is not yet ripe (often because there is no actual injury yet or imminence), like if there is no standing -- there is no case or controversy and thus the court cannot decide on the merits.

so let's say the hypo show a lack of standing, but "lack of standing" and "lack of case or controversy" are both answers, do I choose the most specific option or chose case or controversy because everything kinda flows up to and wipes that out?

If there is no standing, there is no case or controversy. You'd probably be safer picking 'lack of case or controversy'. The constitution specifically requires a 'case or controversy' for the court to decide a case and standing has simply been read into that. I have a strong feeling that in any question like that standing will be arguable -- SCOTUS changes its mind a lot on what is sufficient and leaves open a lot of possibilities.

theoretically, a possible injury could be enough for injury in standing, but not "imminent" enough for ripeness, correct?

thanks for the help

uwb09 wrote:theoretically, a possible injury could be enough for injury in standing, but not "imminent" enough for ripeness, correct?

thanks for the help

Yes, a possible injury -- if classified as 'imminent' could be enough injury, but the case may still not be ripe for review (what if there is no proof of causation/redressability yet?). Imminence requires more than a hypothetical injury though. If an injury is imminent and the other standing requirements are met, the case should be ripe (though watch out for declaratory judgments/injunctive relief).

On an essay, I'd certainly argue this both ways.

A good case to look at on this: Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 87 S. Ct. 1507, 18 L. Ed. 2d 681 (1967)

lawloser22 wrote:
If there is no standing, there is no case or controversy.

I disagree.

Hypo: A violates B's valid patent, and unrelated third-party C sues A. There is a valid case or controversy, but C lacks standing to bring it.

Though this is incredibly simplistic, for the purpose of MC, I would probably answer questions as follows:

Ripeness = not the right time for the case, facts too speculative
Standing = not the right parties for the case, can be an actual case, but these are not the right people to bring it
C or C = issue is calling for an advisory opinion (feigned or collusive cases), no finality (decision of the court would be subject to review by another branch before judgement would be final), etc.
Mootness = conduct of the case has been concluded in such a way as there is no longer a redressable injury (subject to limitations for conduct voluntarily ceased or capable of repetition without opportunity for judicial review) (some of this can be overcome by what relief the P is asking for)