Subject Matter Jurisdiction Research Paper

Throughout the course of this investigation, the following courthouse was researched to locate any all court documentation for Dennis Baker and Charlotte Baker, as the search was expanded to include Shawna Thornton’s affiliation with the Bakers’.

&his would not apply as the plainti' lives in New (ork. $owever" the long)arm statute could be enacted to gain jurisdiction over Funny Face who originates out of California *+ubasek" p. ,-./ubject matter jurisdiction refers to the nature of the claim or controversy. /ubject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear particular types of cases. Federal courts deal with admiralty" bankruptcy" disputes of state against state" disputes against the 0./." disputes of federal law" etc. None of these categories apply. 1 diversity)of)citi2enship case must meet both re#uirements that the plainti' does not livein the same state as the defendant" and the case controversy issues cannot e!ceed 345"666. &his could apply as both parties reside in di'erent states" and if there is a product safety concern" medical costs and damages could easily e!ceed 345"666 *+ubasek" p. ,,.7inimum contacts is the contact re#uired between a party and a state in order for the courts of that state to constitutionally assert power

Feedback: Questions of federal law and diversity between different states and citizens of different states are within the jurisdiction of Federal courts. State tort cases between citizens of the SAME state are restricted to state court.

In the case of Margolin v. Novelty Now the appropriate court for this lawsuit depends upon several factors. In personal jurisdiction the book states that the courts are given the power to provide a decision in affecting the rights of individuals (Kubasek). In this case, the court will give a decision giving rights to Mr. Margolin, and taking rights from Novelty Now. For subject matter jurisdiction, a certain specified court will be able to hear the case This means, that it must be decided which court hears the case, whether state or federal jurisdiction. Since this case contains three different states, the federal court system must be the one to hear the case. In this case, minimum contacts must be determined to decide if a certain state will have power to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state (Kubasek). In this case, it must be decided if New York will take personal jurisdiction of the defendants residing in California, or Novelty Now residing in Florida.

Subject matter jurisdiction allows a court the authority to only hear case that are in regards to a specific topic. Although restrictive in its ability to hear cases based on the topic, subject matter jurisdiction can specialize in a specific case type. Courts such as tax, federal claims and bankruptcy are examples courts which have subject matter jurisdiction.

The California judicial system and the United States federal system are different but comparable. Consequently, both the California and the United States federal judicial system handle different types of cases. Essentially, California handles cases that deal with 1) state courts 2) civil cases and 3) criminal cases. On the other hand, the United States federal system handle cases that deal with 1) the Constitution, 2) laws that are passed through congress and 3) cases in which the United States is a party. In spite of the fact that the California system and the United States federal system are different yet comparable, this paper will address both court systems concluding with the United States federal system being superior to the California system.

Jurisdiction refers to a courts power over property within its geographical boundaries. The court cannot use jurisdiction unless the defendant has minimum contacts within the state where the court is located. Minimum contacts is legal term for a defendant from one state that can be taken to court in another state for a civil case due to the defendant's unlawful actions, which was committed in the state where the court exist. Minimum contact requirements are associated with the Fourteenth Amendment right of due process. Most case are resolved on a case by case basis after a consideration of all the facts. A decision on jurisdiction may depend on one or more different factors not present on other cases.

A court can exercise personal jurisdiction over any person or business that abides within a certain geographic area, or any out of area defendant as long as there was minimum contact with the area to justify jurisdiction. Each state has its own long arm statue in place that defines minimum contact. Personal jurisdiction for federal courts is broad, extending to any persons within the United States, whereas personal jurisdiction for state courts is much more narrow. Different courts have the authority to hear different kinds of cases. Subject matter jurisdiction for federal courts is relatively narrow. There must be an issue of federal law, or there must be a dispute between citizens or businesses of different states and the amount in question must at least $75,000. States have a much more broad subject matter jurisdiction; they can hear pretty much any matter, whether involving state or federal law.

Personal jurisdiction refers to the ability of a court to exercise its power over a particular defendant or item of property. Personal jurisdiction may be categorized as in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. The primary restraints on a court’s power to exercise personal jurisdiction are found in the United States Constitution, state statutes, and case law.

Specific personal Jurisdiction—Refers to a court’s power to hear matters over parties lacking systematic and continuous contacts with the state, but have a minimum contact to the parties activities therein.

Court cases, both criminal and civil begin in a regional court which makes a decision based upon the law that governs that particular region and that specific

The three tiers of the American Federal Court System consist of Trial Courts, the Appellate Courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court. The Trial Courts tier is made up of 94 Federal Judicial Courts, U.S. Bankruptcy Courts, Court of Federal Claims, and the Court of International Trade. The majority of cases involving federal law or code violations will be heard in a trial court first as they have jurisdiction over most of the federal cases. This includes cases involving drug trafficking, habeas corpus, identity theft, RICO, misdemeanors on federal property, hate crimes, computer fraud, and credit card fraud. Non-criminal cases involving debt repayment and other issues with the parties are heard by the bankruptcy courts. Cases involving customs issues or international trade are handled by The Court of International Trade. Cases involving eminent domain by the federal government, federal contracts, or claims against the U.S. that involve money are heard by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Hogan, 2010).

The state trial courts of general jurisdiction are the district courts. The district court has exclusive jurisdiction on felony cases, as well as divorce cases, cases involving title to land, and election contest cases. It shares jurisdiction with the county courts, and in some case justice of the peace courts, for civil cases the lowest limit for hearing a case is a mere $200 in controversy, while in Justice of the Peace courts can hear cases up to $5,000. In a "catchall" provision it hears all cases in which jurisdiction is not placed in another trial court.

Reasoning: Determining jurisdiction is critical because jurisdiction not only allows the party to know whether that court is entitled to adjudicate a dispute, but it can also help determine which laws are applicable, which can make a difference in a party's recovery. For example, Georgia and Delaware might have different laws regarding damages so that Elle may have an advantage in one court as compared to another court. In order for a court to be able to exercise jurisdiction, the court must have some connection to either the parties or to the event in question. Therefore, the possibilities for jurisdiction include: the district court for the state of Georgia, the district court for the state of Delaware, or one of the state courts for either Georgia or Delaware. In order for federal jurisdiction to apply, the circumstances of the case must meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction refers to that federal court jurisdiction involved when the parties involved are from two

Jurisdiction is the authority to decide who has the right to judge others. This person can be a judge who has the authority to judge people based on their expertise in their own courtroom. The person who has the authority to be judge must ask themselves the question, do I have the authority to decide this case with my expertise? A criminal court judge does not have the right to be a cheerleading competition judge and vise versa. Yes, they are both judges, but they both do not have the right to judge on anything other than their own expertise.