1.7 Legal Concepts: Standing, Ripeness, and Venue

A party may bring a suit in court only if he or she has a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. This is known as standing the ability of a party to bring suit in court by demonstrating that it has a personal stake in the outcome of the dispute . In other words, the party must be “aggrieved” by some threatened or actual harm and may not file a suit in which he or she has suffered no injury. For example, Susan, John’s friend, may not file a lawsuit to enforce a contract between John and Tim, as she is not a party to the contract. There are exceptions, as in the case of environmental groups, which are granted standing to challenge harms to the environment, not on a claim of specific damage to any ascertained person, but on the notion of general public harm.

Under the doctrine of ripenessReadiness for court; a case must be developed into an existing dispute before a court will hear it, courts in the U.S. will not offer advisory opinions on supposed controversies which have not yet occurred. In other words, the facts of a case must have developed into an existing controversy warranting judicial resolution before a court may hear it. The court systems of some countries allow for the “what if” lawsuit; the idea being that knowing how a court intends to rule on a matter may allow the parties to avoid conflict in the first instance. This is not the case in the U.S., as an actual controversy must exist before a court will hear legal claims.

Where a trial takes place is called the venue where a trial takes place . Notwithstanding forum shopping, cases usually are heard as near to the location of the parties as possible for reasons of judicial economy and common sense. However, sometimes circumstances will dictate that a trial will occur outside of a normal venue. For example, if a party feels a judge is biased against her or that no impartial jurors can be found in the community, a fair trial may be impossible.  In such cases, a motion for a change of venue A request filed by a party to hold the trial outside of a normal venue may be granted. This was the case of police officers accused of beating Rodney King in Los Angeles in 1992. The officers were successful in a change of venue motion in their criminal trial.  The case was shifted to Ventura County on the theory that no jury in Los Angeles could be impartial to the officers because of the widespread publication of a video tape showing the beating. Interestingly, the officers’ acquittal in Ventura County sparked the now-famous riots in south central Los Angeles and prompted a debate over venue rules.