Also known as: lies · lay · lain · lying · action lies · lies in grant
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
To make an untrue statement knowingly. The statement may support perjury liability when offered under oath.
To have legal foundation. An action or remedy lies when the facts and law support its maintenance in court.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
To make an untrue statement knowingly. The statement may support perjury liability when offered under oath.
Lily Lopez testified for the prosecution. Defense counsel cross-examined her about membership in an organization whose rules require members to lie for one another. The evidence of such expected falsehood is admissible within the trial court's discretion to show bias.
2 common questions
To have legal foundation. An action or remedy lies when the facts and law support its maintenance in court.
Lamar Lewis challenged a federal excise tax on imported goods as nonuniform. The court held that an action for declaratory relief lies under Article I Section 8 because Congress possesses enumerated power to impose uniform duties.
Laura Lewis leased a residential unit from Landmark Realty. After the roof leaked repeatedly, her suit for breach of the implied repair covenant lies under the Restatement because the landlord had agreed to maintain the premises.
Such evidence is always relevant and admissible to show bias. The trial court retains discretion over the scope of cross-examination but may not exclude the evidence outright under the Federal Rules.
One meaning concerns false statements that may constitute perjury or bias. The other concerns whether a legal claim or remedy has sufficient foundation to proceed in court.
Lance Lee sued a state agency after a statute altered his existing contract rights. His claim lies under Article I Section 10 because the state law impaired the obligation of contracts without congressional consent.
Liam Larson challenged a state ban on contraceptive counseling. His constitutional claim lies because the right of privacy emanates from specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights as recognized in Griswold.
Estelle Griswold served as Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Dr. C. Lee Buxton served as the League's Medical Director and was a professor at Yale Medical School. Together they opened and operated a center in New Haven that was open from November 1 to November 10, 1961. At the center they gave information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception. They examined the wife and prescribed the best contraceptive device or material for her use. Fees were usually charged, although some couples were serviced free. The statutes involved were sections 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev.). Section 53-32 made it a crime to use any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception. Section 54-196 punished accessories as principals. The appellants were found guilty as accessories and fined $100 each. The Appellate Division of the Circuit Court affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut affirmed that judgment in State v. Griswold, 151 Conn. 544, 200 A. 2d 479. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction. The appellants asserted standing to raise the constitutional rights of the married persons with whom they had a professional relationship. A criminal conviction for serving married couples removes doubts about case or controversy. The rights of husband and wife would be diluted unless considered in a suit involving those who have this kind of confidential relation to them.
View caseLuis Lopez sought a writ to compel the Secretary of State to deliver his commission. The mandamus action does not lie because the Secretary's duty is owed only to the President under the relevant statute.
In December 1801, William Marbury, Dennis Ramsay, Robert Townsend Hooe, and William Harper petitioned the Supreme Court for a rule requiring Secretary of State James Madison to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue commanding delivery of their commissions as justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. The applicants had been nominated by outgoing President John Adams. The Senate had advised and consented to the appointments. Commissions in due form were signed by the President with the seal of the United States affixed by the Secretary of State. During the proceedings the Court heard testimony from Department of State clerks Jacob Wagner and Daniel Brent, who described the preparation and handling of the commissions. Wagner recalled that two commissions had been signed but could not confirm whether those of the applicants were recorded. Brent believed Marbury's and Hooe's commissions were made out. Ramsay's was omitted by mistake. None of the Adams-signed commissions for District justices were recorded. Attorney General Levi Lincoln, who had acted as Secretary of State, testified that he had seen signed and sealed commissions but did not know whether any for the applicants were ever sent out. James Marshall's affidavit stated that on March 4, 1801, he received and later returned several commissions from the Secretary of State's office, including those for Hooe and Harper. The applicants also submitted the affidavit of Hazen Kimball confirming that commissions for Marbury and Hooe were in the office on March 3, 1801. Madison did not appear or show cause after the rule was served. The motion for the writ itself was heard in the February 1803 term.
View case2 common questions
An action lies when the facts satisfy an enumerated power or prohibition that creates a justiciable claim. Article I Sections 8 and 10 supply the textual foundation for such claims.
No. The obligation lies to the extent the landlord has expressly or impliedly agreed to keep the property in repair, including duties imposed by health and safety codes for residential leases.
…officer is one of 'the cases warranted by the principles and usages of law.' It is a general principle that a mandamus lies if there be no other adequate, specific, legal remedy. The writ is of extensive remedial nature and issues where the party has a right to have anything done and no other specific means of…