DOJ-OGR-00000318.jpg
432 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
6
Organizations
2
Locations
4
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
432 KB
Summary
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing by the United States government. It requests that the court dismiss the petitioners' claims and proceedings due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The argument relies on legal precedent from the 11th Circuit, specifically concerning the doctrine of ripeness, which dictates that a court cannot issue advisory opinions or decide cases that are not ready for judicial review.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Reahard |
Party in the cited case Reahard v. Lee County.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Lee County | government agency |
Party in the cited case Reahard v. Lee County.
|
| 11th Cir. | government agency |
Abbreviation for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the court that decided the cited cases.
|
| Jacksonville Property Rights Ass'n, Inc. | association |
Party in the cited case Jacksonville Property Rights Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville.
|
| City of Jacksonville | government agency |
Party in the cited case Jacksonville Property Rights Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville.
|
| United States | government agency |
The party requesting the court to dismiss the Petitioners' claims.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of a document identifier (DOJ-OGR-00000318), likely referring to the Department of Just...
|
Timeline (4 events)
1994-01-01
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decided the case of Reahard v. Lee County.
11th Circuit Court of Appeals
2011-01-01
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decided the case of Jacksonville Property Rights Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville.
11th Circuit Court of Appeals
2011-06-29
Rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied in Case No. 09-15629 by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as a party in a legal case citation.
|
|
|
Mentioned as part of the name of a party in a legal case citation (City of Jacksonville).
|
Relationships (3)
Cited as opposing parties in the case Reahard v. Lee County.
Cited as opposing parties in the case Jacksonville Property Rights Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville.
The United States is requesting the court to dismiss the claims of the unnamed 'Petitioners'.
Key Quotes (3)
"The question of ripeness 'goes to whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.'"Source
— 11th Cir. in Reahard v. Lee County
(Quoted to support the argument that ripeness is a jurisdictional issue.)
DOJ-OGR-00000318.jpg
Quote #1
"to issue a declaration on an issue that might never impact their substantive rights,"Source
— 11th Cir. in Jacksonville Property Rights Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville
(Describing what plaintiffs are asking for when a case is not ripe.)
DOJ-OGR-00000318.jpg
Quote #2
"asking th[e] court either to issue an impermissible advisory opinion, or to decide a case that is not yet ripe for decision"Source
— 11th Cir. in Jacksonville Property Rights Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville
(The court's conclusion on what plaintiffs are doing when they ask for a declaration on a non-ripe issue.)
DOJ-OGR-00000318.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,039 characters)
Case 9:08-cv-80436-KAM Document 209-2 Entered on FL SD Docket 07/09/2019 Page 14 of 20
jurisdiction to hear the case.")); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1415 (11th Cir. 1994)
("The question of ripeness 'goes to whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.'")
(quoting Greenbriar, 881 F.2d at 1573); see also Jacksonville Property Rights Ass'n, Inc. v. City
of Jacksonville, 635 F.3d 1266, 1276 (11th Cir. 2011) (concluding that when plaintiffs ask a
court "to issue a declaration on an issue that might never impact their substantive rights," they
are "asking th[e] court either to issue an impermissible advisory opinion, or to decide a case that
is not yet ripe for decision"), reh'g & reh'g en banc denied, Case No. 09-15629, __ Fed. App'x
__ (11th Cir. Jun. 29, 2011) (Table).
("The question of ripeness 'goes to whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.'")
(quoting Greenbriar, 881 F.2d at 1573); see also Jacksonville Property Rights Ass'n, Inc. v. City
of Jacksonville, 635 F.3d 1266, 1276 (11th Cir. 2011) (concluding that when plaintiffs ask a
court "to issue a declaration on an issue that might never impact their substantive rights," they
are "asking th[e] court either to issue an impermissible advisory opinion, or to decide a case that
is not yet ripe for decision"), reh'g & reh'g en banc denied, Case No. 09-15629, __ Fed. App'x
__ (11th Cir. Jun. 29, 2011) (Table).
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the United States respectfully requests that this Court
enter an order dismissing the Petitioners' claims and these proceedings for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
enter an order dismissing the Petitioners' claims and these proceedings for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
13
DOJ-OGR-00000318
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document