Case Analysis : ' The New York Court '

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.

New York v. Sullivan (1964) involves the petitioner the New York Times Company and the respondent City Commissoner L.B. Sullivan and was decided on March 9th 1964. According to Oyez, a brief history the case was “decided together with Abernathy v. Sullivan (1964), this case concerns a full-page ad in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King 's efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad was truthful was unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Previously, according to the Alabama Encyclopedia, “Under Alabama law, belief in the truth of statements did not excuse libel, although it could be used as a factor when determining punitive damages. During the trial in Montgomery 's circuit court, six local residents testified that they believed the statements in paragraphs three and six referred to Sullivan personally. Therefore as a remedy sought in the lower courts, the jury awarded Sullivan $500,000, which was affirmed by the State Supreme Court after an appeal by the NYT, The New York Times

The Courts of Special Jurisdiction or limited jurisdiction are limited to handling cases such as family matters, bankruptcy, patents, copyrights, probate, traffic, juvenile courts and small claims courts for cases under $5,000.00.(Understanding Federal and State Courts)

According to the 2010 Plan for the Future of the New York City Family Court, the main goal of family court relies on ensuring “the highest standard of justice for each and every litigant who enters the courthouse” (2010). This is done by executing a sequence of processes and by providing different resources to individuals involved in the case. There are three major organizations that serve an important role in Family Court. These organizations ensure justice for individuals entering the family court system by providing a variety of different services. These organizations include the Administration for Children’s Services, the Legal Aid Society and the Panel of 18b Attorneys. Each of the three organizations mentioned, work to ensure the welfare of children and service to families by providing a variety of different services.

The appropriate court for this lawsuit depends upon several factors. Three important considerations include the following: Personal jurisdiction which allows courts to have jurisdiction over both the plaintiff and defendant in a case. Specific to corporations, personal jurisdiction only applies in the state in which the company does business, is incorporated and has it principle office. In Margolin’s suit, personal jurisdiction would not apply because although the company does business in the state of New York, both Novelty Now and Funny Faces are not incorporated or have principle offices in this state.

Introduction Of Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) is a court case heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case dealt with the constitutionality of the search of a public school student after she had gotten caught smoking in a public school bathroom. The search provided evidence of drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and the intent of sale of drugs. The student fought the charges, stating that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3, that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

A federal court's power to hear any case where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and no plaintiff shares a state of citizenship with any defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Diversity jurisdiction is one of the two main types of subject-matter jurisdiction in federal 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

Donald Margolin is defendant and Novelty Now Inc is the plaintiff. In this specific court case, New York doesn’t have the jurisdiction to take the case because the three men (Chris, Matt, and Ian) which are contracted through Novelty Now Inc. states that the suit before them has to be settled in Florida. Although this would only stand if the defendant has never had any business with anyone in the state of Florida per personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear and determine a lawsuit involving a defendant’s having some contact with the place where the court is located (Per, 2008).

When considering the facts of the Margolin’s lawsuit with the rules of jurisdiction, first one must understand when personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction would be applicable. As stated in the textbook, “Personal Jurisdiction is a court 's power to render a decision affecting the rights of the specific persons before the court. Generally, a court 's power to exercise in personam jurisdiction extends only over a specific geographic region.” (Kubasek, pg.42, 2009). Before a court can decide to implement control over a person, they require a minimum contact within the district in which the court is over. In this case, the minimum contact was established over the internet when Margolin inputted information over the internet that completed the business transaction. Since the contact is through the internet, and not within boundaries of the state of California or Florida, the court can exercise personal jurisdiction Margolin’s lawsuit over Funny Face and Novelty Now (Kubasek, 2009).

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.

What court will have jurisdiction over Tanya's suit? Why? The most likely court with jurisdiction over Tanya's suit will be the federal court in the state of Confusion. That is because Tanya's suit raises a federal issue, that of the regulation of interstate commerce. Generally, such a case would be filed in the federal court in the same state where the alleged harm manifested itself. However, there is also a possibility that Tanya could seek to use the concept of "long-arm" jurisdiction (Nowak & Rotunda, 2007) to have the case adjudicated in the federal court in Denial based on the fact that the illegal regulation in Confusion affected some of the residents of the state of Denial, irrespective of where the harm was caused.

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.

Mr. Fields was prosecuted by the U.S government for lying about his acts of bravery in the military and subsequent earning of a purple heart. It was later discovered, however, that Mr. Fields had never even joined the military let alone receive a purple heart. Fields retaliated by claiming that his constitutional rights were being violated and that lying is free speech. The prosecutors argued that his action defamed the institutions of the U.S military and its awards for real U.S veterans. Obviously this case is extremely divisive, however not without precedent. Within the case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the court ruled that you don’t need to prove that you are harmed by the other party in order to sue. However Texas v. Johnson ruled that