Federal Jurisdiction Essay

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.

The US Constitution defines the federal government as “The Supreme Law of the land”, known as the Supremacy Clause. Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution states that, should the federal government exercise their rights enumerated in the Constitution, they would prevail over any conflicting state implementation of power. The clause ensures that the federal laws take precedence over state laws and ensures that state judges uphold these laws. The Supremacy Clause checks the power of the local governments by

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)

Federalism has played a large role in our government since the time that the Constitution was ratified. It originally gave the majority of the power to the states. As time went on, the national government gained more and more power. It used the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution to validate its acts, and the Supreme Court made decisions that strengthened the national government creating a more unified United States. Finally, the recent course of federalism has been to give powers back to the states.

The Northern District Court of Alabama likely has personal jurisdiction over Fibberman. The Alabama rule for out-of-state service is 4.2(b) which states,

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.

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

The Federal Court System is one of the most essential and significant functions to help settle a matter. Much work is involved in the application of a body of rules and principals of rulings. The path the Federal Courts have to take in order to be heard by the Supreme Court is a lengthy process. Given millions of disputes every year, it becomes impossible for the Federal Courts to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdictions that limit the variety of cases that are clearly defined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has developed specific rules that within the jurisdictions will and will not hear. The Federal Court must show they have extreme and substantial evidence in the outcome of the case. In mootness, the Federal

Also commonly referred to as The Steel Seizure Case, it was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the US Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. The Majority decision was that the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

In the case of Anthony, a New Jersey resident and owner of a waste disposal company in the state of New Jersey, and his two business associates, Paul and Silvio, whom suffered severe injuries due to a motor vehicle accident caused by a negligent truck driver; they have great standing to sue against the neglectful driver and the company associated with the ownership of the vehicle. Regardless of the diversity of their residency/ citizenship, the affected party can proceed to sue the corporation responsible for the damages caused by their staff and property; reason being that they are protected under the Constitution’s diversity of citizenship, and the privileges and immunities clause. Furthermore, these two constitutional clauses in addition to the commerce clause, dictate the court that the matter needs to be brought to.

Generally, California superior courts have jurisdiction over a person that lives in California, can be found in California, organizations that perform business in the state of California. Thus, if a person who lives in California or an organization that performs business there, the superior court has personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction can be in four forms: presence, place of business, consent, and minimum contacts (Burman, 2011). In presence, even though one was only just passing through the state for a few minutes and properly served, one can be sued in that state. Place of business, despite the incident took place in a different state, one can be sued in the

They started the trial in the Western District Courts of Fourth Circuit. The Western District

Brett can file suit in three courts. First, he may file with the state court of Mississippi because the incident occurred within its borders. Second, he may file with the federal court in Mississippi. Third, he may file with the federal court in Wisconsin. The reason he can

One of the many differences between the federal and state courts is regarding each court’s jurisdiction (the types of cases that a court is authorized to hear). California state courts have a much broader jurisdiction than federal courts. Most hearings (felonies, family law, civil cases, probate, etc.) fall under state law and thus are within the jurisdiction of the California judicial system. (Turner et al., 2016). The cases that California courts are not allowed to hear are anything regarding United States federal law, any violations of the US Constitution, cases involving different states, bankruptcy, copyright, etc. Federal courts are limited to these types of cases as well as anything explicitly spelled out by the US Constitution or by Congress.

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.