1.7 Legal Concepts: Standing, Ripeness, and Venue

Standing

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. 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, however. Environmental groups are granted standing to challenge harms to the environment, not on a claim of specific damage to any specific person, but on the notion of general public harm.

Ripeness

Under the doctrine of ripeness, courts in the United States will not offer an advisory opinion on supposed controversies that 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.

Venue

The location where a trial takes place is called the venue. 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 dictate that a trial occur outside of a normal venue. For example, if a party feels a judge is biased against him or her or that no impartial jurors can be found in the community, a fair trial in the normal venue may be impossible. In such cases, a motion for a change of venue may be granted. This was the case for police officers accused of beating Rodney King in Los Angeles in 1992. The case location was shifted after the officers submitted a change of venue motion to Ventura County on the assumption 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.