actual controversy

actual controversy

n. a true legal dispute which leads to a genuine lawsuit rather than merely a "cooked up" legal action filed to get a court to give the equivalent of an advisory opinion. Federal courts, including the U. S. Supreme Court, will only consider an "actual controversy" on appeal, since they will not give advisory (informal) opinions or make judgments on "friendly suits" filed to test the potential outcome. (See: friendly suit)

References in periodicals archive ?
" In support of its request to dismiss this Count, [defendant] MONY asserts that there is no 'actual controversy.' This Court disagrees.
'The apprehension of the respondent that it could be rendered technically insolvent through the imposition of the iniquitous taxes imposed by Section 108 and Section 184 of the NIRC, laws that were valid and binding, did not render the action for declaratory fall within the purview of an actual controversy that was ripe for judicial determination,' the SC said.
"There is no actual controversy between plaintiff and Mr.
The utilities moved to dismiss on the ground that no actual controversy existed between the parties.
Although the contract deals with the purchase of frigates, the actual controversy is in the choice of combat management systems, which has been described as the brain of a ship as it integrates its weapons, sensors, communication and navigation systems.
There, thus, no more actual controversy between parties and no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits of this petition," it added.
On appeal, it was claimed that the trial court erred by granting the stay based on its determination that no actual controversy exists as to the UNC-LITF's duty to indemnify until the underlying malpractice action is finally resolved.
"There were no adversaries, and being none, there was no actual controversy," the AG's response said.
"actual controversy" cognizable under the Declaratory Judgment
(2) The Constitution requires that issues for adjudication in federal courts be "ripe," that is, there is an actual controversy between the two parties.
Looking toward United States Fidelity's own admission that the purpose of the suit was "[to] determin[e] questions of actual controversy between the parties," (87) the district court agreed with A & S that the primary purpose in the suit was to determine the various insurance companies' duties toward the polluters, and that "disputes that may exist among the insurers are simply ancillary to the primary issue of the rights and obligations set forth in the liability insurance contracts." (88) Upon this determination, the court realigned the parties and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.