Jurisdiction is a crucial concept in the American legal system, determining which courts can hear and decide cases. It encompasses , , and various types of courts with different scopes of authority.
The chapter explores how jurisdiction is established in state and , including constitutional limits and statutory provisions. It covers key concepts like , , and the requirements for federal court jurisdiction, providing a comprehensive overview of this fundamental legal principle.
Jurisdiction in state and federal courts
Jurisdiction refers to the power and authority of a court to hear and decide a case
Determines which court system (state or federal) and specific court within that system can adjudicate a particular dispute
Essential concept in the American legal system based on federalism and the division of power between state and national governments
Types of jurisdiction
Subject matter vs personal jurisdiction
Top images from around the web for Subject matter vs personal jurisdiction
The Dual Court System | American Government View original
Is this image relevant?
Jurisdiction, Types of Law, and the Selection of Judges | Texas Government View original
Is this image relevant?
U. S. Courts: How do courts interpret contracts and laws? | United States Government View original
Is this image relevant?
The Dual Court System | American Government View original
Is this image relevant?
Jurisdiction, Types of Law, and the Selection of Judges | Texas Government View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Subject matter vs personal jurisdiction
The Dual Court System | American Government View original
Is this image relevant?
Jurisdiction, Types of Law, and the Selection of Judges | Texas Government View original
Is this image relevant?
U. S. Courts: How do courts interpret contracts and laws? | United States Government View original
Is this image relevant?
The Dual Court System | American Government View original
Is this image relevant?
Jurisdiction, Types of Law, and the Selection of Judges | Texas Government View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Subject matter jurisdiction is a court's authority to hear cases of a particular type or regarding a specific subject matter (criminal cases, civil cases above a certain amount in controversy)
Personal jurisdiction is a court's power to make decisions affecting the rights and obligations of the specific parties before it
Both subject matter and personal jurisdiction must be satisfied for a court to hear a case
General vs limited jurisdiction
Courts of general jurisdiction can hear a wide range of cases (state trial courts, federal district courts)
Courts of limited jurisdiction are restricted to specific types of cases as defined by statute (probate courts, family courts, small claims courts)
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, deriving their power from Article III of the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes
Original vs appellate jurisdiction
refers to a court's authority to hear a case from its beginning, make factual determinations, and render a judgment (trial courts)
is the power of a court to review decisions made by lower courts, usually focusing on correcting errors of law (circuit courts, supreme courts)
Some courts, like the U.S. Supreme Court, have both original and appellate jurisdiction in certain cases
Constitutional limits on jurisdiction
Due process clause requirements
The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments place constraints on both personal and subject matter jurisdiction
For a court to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must have certain minimum contacts with the forum state
Exercising jurisdiction must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
Minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction
Minimum contacts analysis examines the defendant's connections and activities within the forum state
Specific jurisdiction exists when the defendant's contacts give rise to the claim at issue
General jurisdiction exists when the defendant has continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state, even if unrelated to the claim
Factors considered include the defendant's physical presence, business activities, contracts, and targeted actions toward the forum state
The defendant's contacts must be purposeful and not merely random or fortuitous
State court jurisdiction
Long-arm statutes for out-of-state defendants
States enact long-arm statutes to define when their courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants
These statutes typically extend jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted by the Due Process Clause
Common bases for long-arm jurisdiction include transacting business in the state, committing a tort within the state, owning property in the state, and contracting to supply goods or services in the state
Domicile and presence as bases
(permanent residence) and physical presence within a state are traditional bases for exercising personal jurisdiction
Individuals are subject to general jurisdiction in their state of domicile, even for claims unrelated to the state
Service of process on a defendant physically present within the state, even temporarily, can establish personal jurisdiction (tag jurisdiction)
Corporations are considered domiciled in their state of incorporation and where they have their principal place of business
Federal court jurisdiction
Federal question jurisdiction
Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over cases arising under the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, and treaties (28 U.S.C. § 1331)
The federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint
Defenses and counterclaims based on federal law do not create
Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction
Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over cases between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (28 U.S.C. § 1332)
Complete diversity is required; no plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any defendant
Citizenship is determined by an individual's domicile and a corporation's states of incorporation and principal place of business
Supplemental jurisdiction over state claims
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, federal courts can exercise supplemental (ancillary) jurisdiction over state law claims related to a federal claim properly before the court
The state and federal claims must arise from a common nucleus of operative fact
promotes judicial efficiency by allowing all related claims to be heard in a single proceeding
Venue and forum non conveniens
Proper venue requirements
refers to the geographic location within a court system where a case may be heard
Federal venue statutes (28 U.S.C. §§ 1391-1413) determine the proper district for a case based on factors like the defendant's residence, where the claim arose, and where property is located
State venue rules typically focus on similar factors within the state court system
Transfer of venue
If a case is filed in an improper venue or for the convenience of parties and witnesses, it may be transferred to another district or division (28 U.S.C. § 1404)
Transfer is discretionary and considers factors such as the availability of evidence, the cost of litigation, and the relative ease of travel for parties and witnesses
Transfer of venue can also occur to cure jurisdictional defects (28 U.S.C. § 1406)
Forum non conveniens dismissals
Even if jurisdiction and venue are proper, a court may dismiss a case under the doctrine of if an alternative forum is substantially more convenient
Factors considered include the relative ease of access to evidence, the availability of compulsory process for witnesses, the cost of obtaining witnesses, and public interest factors
Dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds is more common in cases involving international parties and events
Jurisdictional challenges
Rule 12(b) motions
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), a defendant may challenge personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, venue, or sufficiency of service of process by motion before filing an answer
The court can rule on these threshold issues before addressing the merits of the case
If a is successful, the case will be dismissed without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to refile in a proper court
Waiver of jurisdictional defenses
Personal jurisdiction and venue are waivable defenses; if not raised in a timely manner, they are forfeited
Defendants must assert these defenses in their first responsive pleading (answer or pre-answer motion) or risk waiving them
Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any time, even on appeal
Special appearances to contest jurisdiction
In some states, defendants can make a special appearance solely to contest personal jurisdiction without submitting to the court's authority on the merits
If the jurisdictional challenge fails, the defendant must then file an answer or risk default judgment
The Federal Rules have abolished the distinction between general and special appearances; personal jurisdiction challenges are raised through Rule 12(b)(2) motions
Concurrent and exclusive jurisdiction
State and federal court concurrent jurisdiction
Many cases can be heard in either state or federal court, known as
Plaintiffs with federal claims often have a choice between filing in state or federal court unless exclusive federal jurisdiction applies
are presumed to have concurrent jurisdiction over federal claims unless Congress expressly provides otherwise
Exclusive federal jurisdiction
Some matters, such as bankruptcy, patent, and copyright cases, are within the exclusive subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts
State courts cannot hear cases falling under exclusive federal jurisdiction
Congress can create exclusive federal jurisdiction by statute to ensure uniformity or assert strong federal interests in certain areas of law
Removal and remand
Removal from state to federal court
Defendants sued in state court on claims that could have been filed in federal court can remove the case to federal district court (28 U.S.C. § 1441)
Removal is based on the existence of a federal question or diversity jurisdiction
Defendants must file a notice of removal within 30 days of receiving the initial pleading or summons
Remand back to state court
If a case is improperly removed or the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff can move to remand the case back to state court
The federal court must remand the case if it determines that removal was improper or jurisdiction is lacking
Remand orders based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction are not reviewable on appeal