adverse

(redirected from adverseness)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Encyclopedia.
Related to adverseness: averseness

adverse

adj. clearly contrary, such as an adverse party being the one suing you. An adverse interest in real property is a claim against the property, such as an easement.

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
standing doctrine is "to assure that concrete adverseness which
antisubmarine warfare capabilities since the end of the Cold War, China's marked numerical advantage in the theater, and the western Pacific's maritime topography's adverseness for submarine detection would make ASCM attacks by PLAN submarines a threat throughout a campaign even with extensive American antisubmarine warfare assets present.
The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges "such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions." Unless a person is injuriously affected in any of his constitutional rights by the operation of statute or ordinance, he has no standing." (132)
Although the term "standing" was not fully adopted by the Supreme Court to connote constitutional and other requirements for jurisdiction until well into the twentieth century, (112) the "gist" of the idea had always at least revolved around asking whether the plaintiff could allege "such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues." (113) For much of American history, the various writs and causes of action derived from English common law policed this boundary, as did a related sense of access to justice governed by both legal and equitable processes.
Should judges instead be actively involved in the review process to overcome the lack of adverseness and to obtain better information about the settlement and a truer picture of it?
In war powers cases, this can mean that a case is not ripe unless actual "adverseness" arises between Congress and the president.
(31) The Court held that "in terms of Article III limitations on federal court jurisdiction, the question of standing is related only to whether the dispute sought to be adjudicated will be presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution." (32) The Court's emphasis in this standing decision was on "adverseness" rather than "separation of powers." However, the standard articulated such a high level of generality that probably most disputes could be described as "adverse" and whether the form was one "historically capable of judicial resolution" provided little guidance.
By framing the standing question solely in terms of whether the dispute would be presented in an adversary context and in a form traditionally viewed as capable of judicial resolution, Flast "failed to recognize that this doctrine has a separation-of-powers component, which keeps courts within certain traditional bounds vis-A-vis the other branches, concrete adverseness or not." Lewis v.
President Clinton called on Americans to resist "the fear tactics and the adverseness to change that is behind much of the opposition to NAFTA." Of the 19 serious economic studies of the potential effects of NAFTA, he said, "18 of them have concluded that there will be no job loss."
Carr that Article III of the Constitution requires plaintiffs to have "such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure the concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues." (28) In the first instance, plaintiffs must demonstrate actual or threatened "injury in fact" in order to invoke properly the jurisdiction of the federal court.
For example, in determining whether a given litigant has standing to raise an issue, courts following the Hart & Wechsler model ask whether the litigant has a sufficient personal stake to assure the adverseness needed for a full airing of the issues.(30) If a dispute is brought to court before there is a sufficiently concrete issue to permit effective adjudication, it will be dismissed for lack of ripeness.(31) Under the Pullman abstention doctrine, unsettled state law issues should be left for the state courts, because only they may authoritatively resolve them.(32) In the same vein, the Supreme Court should not undertake to review state court decisions that rest on adequate and independent state law grounds.(33) Erie Railroad Co.
By so doing, the Court rules without the benefit of "that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions" (State Land Board v.