Also known as: operatively · operative clause · operative part
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A legal communication or instrument that has taken effect and produces binding consequences.
Facts shared among claims that form the basis for a court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A legal communication or instrument that has taken effect and produces binding consequences.
Osprey Aviation mailed a signed acceptance form to Outback Mining as the offer required. The form left the offeror's possession before any revocation. The acceptance became operative upon mailing and formed the contract.
Onyx O'Reilly held an option contract to purchase land from Oasis Resorts. Onyx mailed acceptance on the final day. The acceptance was not operative until Oasis received it.
Facts shared among claims that form the basis for a court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.
Orion Orlov filed a diversity action for $90,000 against a defendant. Octavia Okonkwo joined as a plaintiff with a $40,000 claim arising from the same transaction. The court found the facts formed a common nucleus of operative fact. Supplemental jurisdiction attached to Okonkwo's claim.
Olive Okafor asserted a federal copyright claim and a related state unfair-competition claim from the same set of maps and submissions. The claims derived from a common nucleus of operative fact. The court exercised discretion to hear the state claim.
Omar Olson mailed acceptance to the wrong address listed in the offer. The acceptance was not operative upon dispatch because proper precautions were not taken.
Ophelia O'Brien challenged a mining regulation as a taking. The court examined the operative provisions of the statute rather than its stated purpose alone to determine its true effect on property rights.
In 1966 the Pennsylvania Legislature enacted the Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act to address land subsidence caused by underground coal mining. The Act authorizes the Department of Environmental Resources to implement and enforce a comprehensive program preventing or minimizing subsidence and consequent damage to surface structures. Section 4 prohibits mining that causes subsidence damage to public buildings, dwellings used for human habitation, and cemeteries, and generally requires that 50 percent of the coal beneath such structures remain in place to provide surface support. Petitioners are an association of coal producers and several of its member corporations engaged in underground bituminous coal mining in western Pennsylvania. They own, lease, or control substantial coal reserves and associated support estates beneath surface properties affected by the Subsidence Act. Many of these interests were severed from the surface estate between 1890 and 1920, and petitioners or their predecessors typically acquired waivers of liability for subsidence damage along with rights to deposit wastes, provide drainage and ventilation, and erect surface facilities. In 1982 petitioners filed a civil rights action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Resources and other officials. They sought to enjoin enforcement of the Subsidence Act and its implementing regulations, alleging that Section 4 and Section 6 effected a taking of their property without compensation and that Section 6 impaired their contractual obligations. The parties entered a stipulation of facts concerning the facial challenge and filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Department officials. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the constitutional challenges to the Subsidence Act. Petitioners have never claimed that the Subsidence Act makes it commercially impracticable for them to continue mining their bituminous coal interests in western Pennsylvania, nor have they identified any specific mine rendered unprofitable by the statute. The evidence in the record shows that enforcement of the 50 percent rule has required petitioners to leave less than 27 million tons of coal in place. This applies across 13 mines containing over 1.46 billion tons. It amounts to less than 2 percent of the total coal in those operations.
View case2 common questions
An acceptance made in a manner invited by the offer becomes operative when put out of the offeree's possession. It completes mutual assent regardless of whether the acceptance later reaches the offeror.
Acceptance under an option contract is not operative until received by the offeror. The mailbox rule does not apply.
1 common questions
Claims must share a common nucleus of operative fact. At least one claim must satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement and complete diversity must exist.
…Simon v. Southern R. Co. , 236 U. S. 115; People’s Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., supra ; cf. Davis v. Farmers Co-operative Co. , 262 U. S. 312, 317, there have been instances in which the continuous corporate operations within a state were thought so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against…