3.1 Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is a crucial concept in the American legal system, determining which courts can hear and decide cases. It encompasses subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and various types of courts with different scopes of authority.

The chapter explores how jurisdiction is established in state and federal courts, including constitutional limits and statutory provisions. It covers key concepts like minimum contacts, long-arm statutes, 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

• Original jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to hear a case from its beginning, make factual determinations, and render a judgment (trial courts)
• Appellate jurisdiction 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

• Domicile (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 federal question jurisdiction

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
• Supplemental jurisdiction promotes judicial efficiency by allowing all related claims to be heard in a single proceeding

Venue and forum non conveniens

Proper venue requirements

• Venue 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 forum non conveniens 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 jurisdictional challenge 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 concurrent jurisdiction
• Plaintiffs with federal claims often have a choice between filing in state or federal court unless exclusive federal jurisdiction applies
• State courts 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