Final answer:
The question pertains to the legal requirement that a case must be resolvable on matters of law for a court to hear it. It involves jurisdiction, the Seventh Amendment, and the role of precedents in court decisions.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question concerns a legal principle that a case must be capable of being settled as a matter of law rather than on other grounds, such as those considered by legislative bodies.
A key concept here is jurisdiction, which is the authority of a court to hear a case and make a binding judgment. Under the Seventh Amendment, significant protections are placed on the right to a jury trial in civil cases, restraining judges from re-examining facts decided by a jury.
Courts must adhere to certain criteria before hearing a case, including standing, which requires the plaintiff to have suffered or be in immediate danger of suffering an injury.
Additionally, a case must be neither moot (still relevant) nor a result of collusion (parties must not want the same outcome). The issue of precedents also plays a significant role, often influencing which legal interpretations are applied and how cases are decided.
Judges are often guided by constitutional interpretations that evolve with societal changes, a concept championed by figures like Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
These considerations ensure that the courts remain relevant instruments of justice, addressing the 'felt necessities of the time'.