Talk:Cause of action

Obviously this article is heavily US based. In keeping with other articles it could be made jurisdiction neutral, by describing and referencing the concepts first, and then going on to jurisdiction specific points after, keeping much of what's there as being the US section, and adding, e.g. England and Wales. Anyone agree? --Necessaryx 16:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I oppose a merger because it could be different - for example, in bankruptcy law. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The word 'actionable' has uses outside the legal field. Random House Webster's unabridged dictionary, 2d editiongives as definition number three:"ready to go or be put into action; ready for use:..." In the textbook Introduction to Information Systems (2d ed)by Rainer, R. K. & Turban, E. the word is used in defining Knowledge. I did not find the definition for the word in the computer information systems field, though I have found many words have unique definitions in this field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne Lee Hood (talk • contribs) 19:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

My understanding is that most states have a general "right to a remedy" clauses in their state constitutions. Hence many times people can sue in state court without a specific "cause of action." In federal court, the situation is reversed. One needs either (a) a specific statute (example - one cannot discriminate in jobs based upon race), (b) a statute providing a cause of action for a class of rights - ie. Section 1983 which is very common or (c) a Court ruling that an implied right exists. There are a number of legal reviews on this issue. (Just my thoughts).