Advantages And Disadvantages Of Exclusive Jurisdiction

The proprietary right is protected by overriding interest under Section 70(1)(f) of Land Registration Act 1925 (LRA1925). Limitation Act 1980 stated requirement towards the squatter where he is in factual possession to the land for a period of 12 years continuously and is not objected by the land owner, he will obtain a title towards the land. However, Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) brings changes towards this proprietary right where it provides a new set of rules which

• Whether the transfer of chattels and other personal property attached to the land were not fixtures under the general law definition.

The three types of jurisdiction are In Rem which is the courts power to adjudicate rights of all persons with respects to a particular item of property. The second is In personum which is simply personal jurisdiction, this jurisdiction has power over the person of a particular defendant. Lastly there’s Quasi-in-Rem which is the court has power to determine whether particular individuals own specific property within the courts control. Courts can adjudicate disputes other than ownership based upon the presence of the defendant’s property in the

Personal Jurisdiction “also known as “jurisdiction in personam” is the power of a court to require that a party or a witness come before the court; extends to the states boarders in the state court system and across the courts geographic district in the federal system”(pg. 42). In this case, there are three states involved; first is a Internet Company called Funny Face which is based in California, second state involved is Novelty Now Inc. in Florida who manufactures and distributes the product, the third state is New York which is where the customer lived that received the faulty product. This product was a aftershave lotion which had an harmful side effect due to a ingredient that is not FDA approved. According to the contract between Funny Face and Novelty Now all conflicts must go through the state of Florida, therefore this case would be under the state of Florida jurisdiction. “Subject matter jurisdiction is a courts power to hear certain kinds of cases” (pg44). It determines which court system will hear a particular case; state jurisdiction, exclusive federal jurisdiction, or concurrent jurisdiction. The federal court system has exclusive jurisdiction over very few cases including bankruptcy cases, lawsuits in which one state sues another, and claims against the United States. State court systems have a bigger range of jurisdiction including all cases not falling under exclusive federal jurisdiction. Concurrent federal jurisdiction means that both state and federal

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.

In this case there is a major problem when it comes to the jurisdictional issues. If we look at the case it involves federal officials who were attempted to be shot. In this case that means that it can not be seen as a state or a city trial it must be tried as a Federal Trial because it involved federal officials. This case should be tried inside of a federal court not in a state court because the offense is against a federal official

In the wake of the highly controversial and newly-proposed rule clarifying the Environmental Protection Agency’s and Army Corps of Engineers’ interpretations of the phrase “waters of the United States,” the Supreme Court was recently asked to determine whether or not Jurisdictional Determinations issued by the Corps constitute “final agency action” under the Administrative Procedure Act. Such a distinction is important, because if considered “final agency action”, such determinations would be subject to judicial review. Under the Clean Water Act’s “arguably unconstitutionally vague” definition of “waters of the United States,” the exact scope of jurisdiction is murky at best. The indefinite scope of jurisdiction that CWA imparts has been criticized as expanding the Corps’ and EPA’s jurisdiction so vastly, it caused Justice Scalia to speculate that “[a]ny piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by [Federal] employees as wetlands covered by the Act . .

This article analyzes and evaluates the principle of universal jurisdiction and the difficulties in its implementation. There is still a number of obstacles legal and non legal to proper and better implementation even if this principle is well known. About the principles of universal jurisdiction can something original or new be discovered or asserted? Universal jurisdiction is one of the talked topics in today’s world. Concept of universal criminal jurisdiction is very complex. When we talk about universal jurisdiction sovereignty also comes to raise its voice.

Original jurisdiction refers to where the case starts. Appellate jurisdiction means that the court reviews the decision from the other court. Meaning, if you are prosecuted for a crime, the court where the trial would be held, has the original jurisdiction. Furthermore, the US Supreme Court generally is a court of an appellate jurisdiction, but it does have original jurisdiction for cases regarding ambassadors, or other public ministers. The court that reviews the decision of the trial from the lower court, would have appellate jurisdiction. Moreover, if you lose in court you can ask a higher court, an appellate court to consider whether or not your trial followed the law correctly. If you lose in the appellate court you can ask the highest court in the land which is the United States Supreme Court. Genuine jurisdiction is different entirely from special jurisdiction. General jurisdiction has the power of the court to hear only certain types of cases, and if the amount of controversy is below a certain amount, is more times than less subject to exceptions. Courts of the general jurisdiction are often called District Courts or Superior Courts. Jurisdiction may also be referred to the origin of the court's authority. A court may be designated either as a court of general jurisdiction or as a court of special jurisdiction. A court of general

With the permission of the seller, Broker A submits a listing to MLS inviting cooperating brokers to help find a buyer. This is an offer of:

On the present case being addressed to the International Court of Justice in dealing with the matter of sovereignty over the Island of Manca, the issue of legality belonging to which side of the parties at dispute is put forward. The problem however, lies in, the period at which the dispute took place, for International law has not evolved at that time unlike in this day and age.

One of the foundations of arbitration is that awards rendered are final and not subject to appeal before the courts. In this respect, Article 5 of the UNCITRAL Model Law provides for minimal intervention, and says, “In matters governed by this Law, no court shall intervene except where so provided in this Law“. As a result, the grounds upon which a court may set aside an award or refuse to recognize and enforce the same are limited. Article 34 of the Model Law and Article V of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards provide the restrictive grounds for such relief.

The principle of supremacy of European Union (EU) law has been established over the course of more than five decades. It is a principle that was established by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 1964, and it has continued to have a rich history in the jurisprudence of the ECJ and national constitutional courts. As the ECJ and national courts attempt to define their respective realms of influence, a bright debate has sparked regarding constitutional pluralism. Moreover, the recent codification of primacy in the Constitutional Treaty has led to a new debate on the scope of the supremacy of EU law.

Under Art. 267, only ‘court or tribunal’ of a member state may initiate preliminary reference to the ECJ, however through succeeding case law this has been expanded by allowing entities whose members may not be judges, ‘provided that those entities have the power to adjudicate disputes’12. This concept of a court or tribunal has been interpreted widely as it is a matter of union law13. The Advocate-General in De Coster14 criticised the court’s approach and criteria to the interpretation as he deemed it confusing. The court in this instance accepted the reference, as ‘it was a permanent body established in law, that it gives legal rulings and that the jurisdiction is compulsory’15. The court in further cases has treated tribunals as not only tax appeal like in the case above but also; customs, social security and immigration.

International commercial arbitration is one of the most important legal institutions in international private law. This conclusion follows from the fact that the nature of arbitration depends largely on autonomy of the parties, who choose arbitration procedure as the procedure in which the dispute will be settled; place where the arbitration is to be held; arbitral tribunal etc. Probably the most important and considerable expression of the autonomy is the right to choose the law, which is to be applied to merits of the dispute. The chosen applicable law guarantees in large measure predictability of the outcome of the case and allows parties to control the scope of interpretation and application of the international commercial