Also known as: sues · sued · suing · bring suit · file suit
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
To commence a civil proceeding in court against another party to enforce a legal right or obtain redress for an alleged wrong.
Samantha Stone sold her home to Sean Steele under a contract that required her to repair the roof before closing. At closing she delivered a deed that contained no repair promise. After moving in, Steele discovered the roof still leaked. Because the contract merged into the deed, Steele cannot sue Stone for breach of the repair obligation.
Sentinel Security, an LLC with its principal place of business in the Southern District of New York, sues a supplier for breach in that district. Under the venue statute the LLC is deemed to reside only where it maintains its principal place of business, so the action is properly venued there.
Southland Foods, a limited liability company, contracts to buy equipment that arrives defective. Southland Foods sues the manufacturer directly in its own name rather than through its members. The uniform act grants the LLC capacity to sue in its own name, allowing the company to proceed without joining the members.
Silverline Industries, a general partnership, is owed payment on a promissory note. The partnership sues the maker in the name of the partnership. The uniform act expressly authorizes a partnership to sue in the name of the partnership, so the action proceeds without naming the individual partners as plaintiffs.
Steven Silva is subjected to an unreasonable search by federal agents. He sues the agents for damages under the Fourth Amendment even though no statute expressly creates the cause of action. The Supreme Court recognized an implied right to sue federal officers for constitutional violations, allowing Silva's claim to proceed.
On the morning of November 26, 1965, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics entered Webster Bivens's apartment in the Bronx. The agents broke open the door, handcuffed Bivens in front of his wife and young children, and thoroughly searched the apartment. They then transported Bivens to the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, where he was interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search. Several days later Bivens was released on his own recognizance, and he was never indicted or prosecuted for any offense. Bivens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the six agents in their individual capacities. His complaint sought fifteen thousand dollars in damages from each agent and alleged that the arrest and search were effected without a warrant, that unreasonable force was employed, and that the arrest was made without probable cause. Bivens claimed to have suffered great humiliation, embarrassment, and mental suffering as a result of the agents' conduct. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the judgment.
View caseSophia Singh, a pregnant woman, sues a district attorney to enjoin enforcement of a state criminal abortion statute. She alleges the statute violates her constitutional rights. The Supreme Court held that she has standing to sue, permitting the federal court to reach the merits of her claim.
In March 1970, Jane Roe, a single woman residing in Dallas County, Texas, instituted a federal action against the District Attorney of the county. She sought a declaratory judgment that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were unconstitutional on their face. She also sought an injunction restraining enforcement of the statutes. Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant. She wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion performed by a competent licensed physician under safe clinical conditions. She was unable to obtain a legal abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by continuation of the pregnancy. She could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction to secure a legal abortion. James Hubert Hallford, a licensed physician, sought and was granted leave to intervene in Roe's action. In his complaint he alleged that he had been arrested previously for violations of the Texas abortion statutes. Two such prosecutions were pending against him in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County. He described conditions of patients who came to him seeking abortions. He claimed that for many cases he was unable to determine whether they fell within or outside the exception recognized by Article 1196 of the Texas Penal Code. John and Mary Doe, a married couple, filed a companion complaint also naming the District Attorney as defendant. The Does alleged that they were a childless couple. Mrs. Doe was suffering from a neural-chemical disorder. Her physician had advised her to avoid pregnancy until her condition materially improved. She had discontinued use of birth control pills pursuant to medical advice. If she should become pregnant she would want to terminate the pregnancy by an abortion performed by a competent licensed physician under safe clinical conditions. The two actions were consolidated and heard together by a duly convened three-judge district court for the Northern District of Texas. Upon the filing of affidavits, motions were made for dismissal and for summary judgment. The court held that Roe and members of her class and Dr. Hallford had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. The Does had failed to allege facts sufficient to state a present controversy and did not have standing. It concluded that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were void on their face. The court dismissed the Does' complaint while denying injunctive relief. The plaintiffs Roe and Doe and the intervenor Hallford appealed to the Supreme Court from that part of the District Court's judgment denying the injunction. The defendant District Attorney cross-appealed from the grant of declaratory relief. Both sides also took protective appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That court ordered the appeals held in abeyance pending decision by the Supreme Court.
View caseMerger discharges contractual promises not embodied in the deed, so a buyer generally cannot sue for breach of those terms after accepting the deed. Exceptions remain for fraud, mutual mistake, or promises collateral to the transfer.
Supporting sources
An LLC is deemed to reside, as plaintiff, only in the district of its principal place of business. As defendant it resides in any district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.
Supporting sources
Yes. The uniform act grants a partnership the capacity to sue and be sued in the name of the partnership itself.
Supporting sources
The uniform limited liability company act expressly confers on an LLC the capacity to sue and be sued in its own name.
Supporting sources
…Court for the Northern District of Texas, to which the action was referred, held that the Does and Hallford had no standing to sue, but that Roe did have standing, and that the Texas abortion laws were unconstitutional. The court declared the laws void but refused to issue an injunction against their enforcement.…