Opinion ID: 1381085
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: this case presents a justiciable controversy

Text: The Attorney General contends that the Department does not have standing in this proceeding nor is there a justiciable controversy presented. He argues that since the parties who stand to benefit by the Act are the railroads, only they have standing to maintain the action. The argument that no justiciable controversy exists is based on the absence of a plan or program by which the Department will seek to offer aid to non-state-owned railroads. Without a specific program, the Attorney General argues, we would be merely giving an advisory opinion based on hypothetical facts. To be a proper subject for adjudication, a controversy must be justiciable, that is, appropriate for judicial inquiry. Included within the rubric of justiciability is a controversy which is (a) definite and concrete, (b) concerns legal relations among parties with adverse interests and (c) is real and substantial so as to be capable of a decision granting or denying specific relief. [6] As an aspect of justiciability, standing focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint before the court and not on the issues tendered for determination. In standing problems the inquiry posed is whether the party invoking the court's jurisdiction has a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the tendered controversy. [7] In the case at bar, the parties have adverse legal interests. The Department bears certain legal responsibilities which stand imposed upon it by the Act. The opinions of the Attorney General pose a legal impediment to the Department's efforts to implement the Act. The hurdle cannot be overcome without judicial intervention because public officials act at their peril when they disregard an opinion by the Attorney General. This court's powers must be invoked to determine whether the opinions of the Attorney General are a valid legal obstacle to the Department's expenditure of funds. The absence of a specific program presents no legal obstacle to a decision from this court on the issue whether federal and private funds may be expended. As discussed later in Part II, since these funds do not become state funds after being deposited in the state treasury and hence are not subject to the constitutional proscriptions the Attorney General invokes, we need not be concerned here with how these funds will be expended. In this controversy we had the choice of assuming jurisdiction or allowing the Department to litigate its case in the district court. We determined that the matter was fit for adversarial testing in this forum because of the publici juris nature of the controversy and the pressing need for resolution of the issue. Inasmuch as this court is not equipped to function as a nisi prius forum, the district court was cast in the role of a referee in case evidentiary proceedings became necessary. [8]