Ads
related to: complaint for declaratory judgment form
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The filing of a declaratory judgment lawsuit can follow the sending by one party of a cease-and-desist letter to another party. [6] A party contemplating sending such a letter risks that the recipient, or a party related to the recipient (i.e. such as a customer or supplier), may file for a declaratory judgment in their own jurisdiction, or sue for minor damages in the law of unjustified threats.
In legal terminology, a complaint is any formal legal document that sets out the facts and legal reasons (see: cause of action) that the filing party or parties (the plaintiff(s)) believes are sufficient to support a claim against the party or parties against whom the claim is brought (the defendant(s)) that entitles the plaintiff(s) to a remedy (either money damages or injunctive relief).
Jane Doe v. Trump (1:17-cv-01597-CKK) was a lawsuit filed on August 9, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.The suit sought to block Donald Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people [1] [2] under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. [3]
The action to quiet title resembles other forms of "preventive adjudication," such as the declaratory judgment. [ 2 ] This genre of lawsuit is also sometimes called either a try title , trespass to try title , or ejectment action "to recover possession of land wrongfully occupied by a defendant."
A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted upon an individual.
Perhaps the best known case creating an implied cause of action for constitutional rights is Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In that case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that an individual whose Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by federal agents could sue for the violation of the Amendment itself, despite the lack ...