If my state's statutes are silent on an issue - - - -

[ecs]

General question:

If my state's statutes are silent on an issue on which I need relief, can a person petition the court to act on that issue? Or is one prohibited from doing so because their state is silent on the issue? - and any such petition will not be processed or considered by the court?

 

[latigo]

General question:

If my state's statutes are silent on an issue on which I need relief, can a person petition the court to act on that issue? Or is one prohibited from doing so because their state is silent on the issue? - and any such petition will not be processed or considered by the court?

I’m not clairvoyant so I don’t what pressing issue concerns you or why you seem reluctant to say.

But I will tell you this. The far greater bulk of the substantive “issues” adjudicated in our judicial system do not involve tangible laws enacted by legislation.

With the exception of Louisiana, they largely relate to principles of common law and equity shipped over from England.

 

[startedone]

you have common law rights too and rights that extend beyond even that. if your issue is included in these who knows? You don't give much information of what your goal is

 

[ecs]

Respectfully, I am hesitant to identify the specific issue because I want to avoid the possible tendency of triggering a tangential discussion on the issue itself rather than the general principle of whether one can approach the court to address an issue that is not spoken to either way in the state statutes. I am not in Louisiana.

At the risk of initiating a tangential discussion myself, what's different about Louisiana?

 

[tranquility]

It tends to be more French or civil law rather than common law.

 

[justalayman]

Respectfully, I am hesitant to identify the specific issue because I want to avoid the possible tendency of triggering a tangential discussion on the issue itself rather than the general principle of whether one can approach the court to address an issue that is not spoken to either way in the state statutes. I am not in Louisiana.

At the risk of initiating a tangential discussion myself, what's different about Louisiana?

if this does not involve Louisiana, it is best to not get started discussing Louisiana, especially given your statement:

I am hesitant to identify the specific issue because I want to avoid the possible tendency of triggering a tangential discussion on the issue itself

discussing Louisiana law would be a tangential discussion and not directly related to your situation at hand.

see what you started with such a simple question?


Now, it would appear the issue is important to be able to discuss your actual question. If you want anything more than: you might be able to address the issue in the courts, you are going to have to give some details.

 

[ecs]

Well, since someone above first stated that "the Southern state" was an exception, I was simply curious as to why. I had / have no intention of involving "the Southern state". All I wanted was an answer to my general question, and I thank those who generously offered one, or two. Didn't mean to "start" anything, just trying to get educated, in good faith.

 

[latigo]

Respectfully, I am hesitant to identify the specific issue because I want to avoid the possible tendency of triggering a tangential discussion on the issue itself rather than the general principle of whether one can approach the court to address an issue that is not spoken to either way in the state statutes. I am not in Louisiana.

At the risk of initiating a tangential discussion myself, what's different about Louisiana?

You right to privacy and refusal to incriminate yourself is recognized.

But that doesn’t detract from the fact that what you are asking in here amounts to pigeon holing. That is, you’ve encased your question within such limited and defeating parameters as to render it totally impractical.

When you go to the dentist do you tell him which tooth to start drilling, or do you permit him to have a look see before applying the needle?

 

[ecs]

You right to privacy and refusal to incriminate yourself is recognized.

Thank you for recognizing my right to privacy and refusal to incriminate myself.

But that doesn’t detract from the fact that what you are asking in here amounts to pigeon holing. That is, you’ve encased your question within such limited and defeating parameters as to render it totally impractical.


Respectfully, I disagree. Imagine the general question without any attachment to a situation, or with an attachment to multiple situations. My intent was to ask the general question separate & apart from any particular situation, and made it a point to label it a general question, situations notwithstanding.

When you go to the dentist do you tell him which tooth to start drilling, or do you permit him to have a look see before applying the needle?

If I ask my dentist a general question about, for example, proper dental care, or his dental education, or which toothpaste he recommends, or the latest advances in dental practice, he doesn't have to look into my mouth with needle in hand to answer the question.

I love the KISS philosophy - Keep It Simple Sweetheart. That's all I was trying to do.

Thanks all again.

 

[Zigner]

Well then - why don't you find a forum that will answer questions based on no facts or context what-so-ever. I'm sure you'll hear what you want there. Good day.

 

[las365]

Respectfully, I disagree. Imagine the general question without any attachment to a situation, or with an attachment to multiple situations. My intent was to ask the general question separate & apart from any particular situation, and made it a point to label it a general question, situations notwithstanding.

The problem with your question as posed:

If my state's statutes are silent on an issue on which I need relief, can a person petition the court to act on that issue? Or is one prohibited from doing so because their state is silent on the issue? - and any such petition will not be processed or considered by the court?

Is that it is impossible to answer accurately without knowing what the issue is, except by saying that you may have a valid basis to petition the Court, or you may not.

So that is your answer: Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[ecs]

Well then - why don't you find a forum that will answer questions based on no facts or context what-so-ever. I'm sure you'll hear what you want there. Good day.

I didn't realize that this forum didn't allow general questions. I'll have to find the forum rules and read them. Good day to you too.

So that is your answer: Maybe. Maybe not.

Latigo and Startedone gave me very helpful & insightfiul & useful answers, and I thank them profusely. So, it is possible.

 

[latigo]

ec . . . intent was to ask the general question separate & apart from any particular situation, and made it a point to label it a general question, situations notwithstanding..??????? . . . Blah blah . . . . more blah blah . . . I love the KISS philosophy . . more blahs. The end.

You insist on simplicity? Fine!

As I recall you asked if an enabling legislative act was required in order to litigate a specific issue. And the answer is yes and no.

Is that distilled to your liking, cutting to the quick or should I remove all the modifiers, punctuation, paragraphing, emphases, etc.? Or perhaps you’d prefer to have it expressed mathematically.

Anything else?

(Was eine clevere Wisenheirmer sind Sie)
________________________

“Treating a complex subject or action as though it were simple, multiples its complexity because of the difficulty in systematizing missing unknown factors or elements.” Homer Kelley

 

[ecs]

Anything else?

Not for now, not until the next question. Thank you for your time, expertise and wisdom.