LAW 231 Final

Names of the parties on a civil trial and appellate level

Appellant v. Appellee Plaintiff v. Defendant

Importance of settlement

In law, a settlement is a resolution between disputing parties about a legal case, reached either before or after court action begins. The term "settlement" also has other meanings in the context of law. Structured settlements provide for future periodic payments, instead of a one time cash payment.

The appeal process (parties)

In the federal court system, there are thirteen U.S. courts of appeals—referred to as U.S. circuit courts of appeals. Twelve of these courts (including the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit) hear appeals from the federal district courts located within their respective judicial circuits (shown in Exhibit 2-3).Footnote The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Circuit, called the Federal Circuit, has national appellate jurisdiction over certain types of cases, including those involving patent law and those in which the U.S. government is a defendant. The decisions of a circuit court of appeals are binding on all courts within the circuit court's jurisdiction. These decisions are final in most cases, but appeal to the United States Supreme Court is possible.

Civil Law

The branch of law dealing with the definition and enforcement of all private or public rights, as opposed to criminal matters.

If a supervisor request sexual favors of an employee and demotes that employee for refusing his advances:

The employer is strictly liable for sexual harassment because of the retaliation by the supervisor.

Maria, who is hard of hearing, has applied for an office job. According to recent U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, loss of hearing would be an ADA disability IF:

the hearing loss was still substantial even with the use of a hearing aid Not all of the above

stare decisis has two aspects:

A court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Decisions made by a higher court are binding on lower courts.

Arbitration

A more formal method of ADR is arbitration, in which an arbitrator (a neutral third party or a panel of experts) hears a dispute and imposes a resolution on the parties. Arbitration differs from other forms of ADR in that the third party hearing the dispute makes a decision for the parties. Usually, the parties in arbitration agree that the third party's decision will be legally binding, although the parties can also agree to nonbinding arbitration. In nonbinding arbitration, the parties can go forward with a lawsuit if they do not agree with the arbitrator's decision. Arbitration that is mandated by the courts often is not binding on the parties. In some respects, formal arbitration resembles a trial, although usually the procedural rules are much less restrictive than those governing litigation. In a typical arbitration, the parties present opening arguments and ask for specific remedies. Both sides present evidence and may call and examine witnesses. The arbitrator then renders a decision. International contracts also often include arbitration clauses that require a neutral third party to decide any contract disputes. Many of the institutions that offer arbitration, such as the International Chamber of Commerce or the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, have formulated model clauses for parties to use. In international arbitration proceedings, the third party may be a neutral entity, a panel of individuals representing both parties' interests, or some other group or organization. The United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral AwardsFootnote has been implemented in more than 145 countries, including the United States. This convention assists in the enforcement of arbitration clauses, as do provisions in specific treaties among nations. The American Arbitration Association provides arbitration services for international as well as domestic disputes.

Select the CORRECT statement concerning criminal law.

A person who accesses computer information without authority and takes the data without permission for the purpose of private financial gain commits a felony under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Other Options: Double jeopardy prohibits a person from being sued for both a tort and crime arising out of the same factual situation or occurrence. Misdemeanors can only result in fines and no jail time. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act's primary purpose is to prohibit bribes of foreign officials.

How arbitration uses judicial role and arbitration clauses in employment contracts

Almost any commercial matter can be submitted to arbitration. Frequently, parties include an arbitration clause in a contract specifying that any dispute arising under the contract will be resolved through arbitration rather than through the court system. Parties can also agree to arbitrate a dispute after it arises. The Arbitration Process is a legally binding process the binds something just like a judge can. Arbitration is a product of contract. People arbitrate because they agree to. The Arbitration Process includes Submission (Pleading), Hearing (Like a little trial), and an award, the arbitrators decision and award.

Basic steps of a civil trial

Civil lawsuits generally proceed through distinct steps: pleadings, discovery, trial, and possibly an appeal. However, parties can halt this process by voluntarily settling at any time. Most cases settle before reaching trial. Arbitration is sometimes another alternative to a trial. pleadings: Formal statements made by the plaintiff and the defendant in a lawsuit that detail the facts, allegations, and defenses involved in the litigation; the complaint and answer are part of the pleadings. discovery: A phase in the litigation process during which the opposing parties may obtain information from each other and from third parties prior to trial.

Basic characteristics of a Common Law vs Civil Law System

Common Law: One of the unique features of the common law is that it is judge-made law. The body of principles and doctrines that form the common law emerged over time as judges decided legal controversies. Today, the common law derived from judicial decisions continues to be applied throughout the United States. Common law doctrines and principles, however, govern only areas not covered by statutory or administrative law. In a dispute concerning a particular employment practice, for instance, if a statute regulates that practice, the statute will apply rather than the common law doctrine that applied before the statute was enacted. Civil Law: Civil law spells out the rights and duties that exist between persons and between persons and their governments, as well as the relief available when a person's rights are violated. Typically, in a civil case, a private party sues another private party who has failed to comply with a duty. (Note that the government can also sue a party for a civil law violation.) Much of the law that we discuss in this text is civil law, including contract law and tort law. The main difference between the two systems is that in common law countries, case law — in the form of published judicial opinions — is of primary importance, whereas in civil law systems, codified statutes predominate. But these divisions are not as clear-cut as they might seem. In fact, many countries use a mix of features from common and civil law systems.

Which of the following ethical theories would support the premise that "killing is always wrong" and would make no exceptions even for self defense?

Deontology

Basic grounds for an appeal

Either party may appeal not only the jury's verdict but also the judge's ruling on any pretrial or posttrial motion. Many of the appellate court cases that appear in this text involve appeals of motions for summary judgment or other motions that were denied by trial court judges. Note that a party must have legitimate grounds to file an appeal (some legal error) and that few trial court decisions are reversed on appeal. Moreover, the expenses associated with an appeal can be considerable.

Names, roles, and jurisdiction of the basic trial and appellate courts in the federal and Missouri court systems

Federal-District Courts Missouri-Circuit Courts (Questions of Fact)

Which products liability theory requires that goods sold by shopkeepers in the ordinary course of business be fit and reasonably safe for their ordinary use?

Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Select the FALSE statement concerning legal concepts

In an "output contract," the buyer promises to buy all of the goods a seller produces Other Options: The tort of defamation involves damage to reputation as a result of the publication of false statements. Charging a fee to watch a home videotaped copy of a TV show violates copyright law. "Option contracts" give the buyer the option of canceling a contract within three business days.

Mediation

In mediation, a neutral third party acts as a mediator and works with both sides in the dispute to facilitate a resolution. The mediator, who need not be a lawyer, usually charges a fee for his or her services (which can be split between the parties). States that require parties to undergo ADR before trial often offer mediation as one of the ADR options or (as in Florida) the only option. During mediation, the mediator normally talks with the parties separately as well as jointly, emphasizes their points of agreement, and helps them to evaluate their options. Although the mediator may propose a solution (called a mediator's proposal), he or she does not make a decision resolving the matter. One of the biggest advantages of mediation is that it is less adversarial than litigation. In mediation, the mediator takes an active role and attempts to bring the parties together so that they can come to a mutually satisfactory resolution. The mediation process tends to reduce the antagonism between the disputants, allowing them to resume their former relationship while minimizing hostility. For this reason, mediation is often the preferred form of ADR for disputes between business partners, employers and employees, or other parties involved in long-term relationships.

Substantive Law

Law that defines, describes, regulates, and creates legal rights and obligations.

Procedural Law

Law that establishes the methods of enforcing the rights established by substantive law.

Statutory Law

Laws enacted by legislative bodies at any level of government, such as statutes passed by Congress or by state legislatures, make up the body of law known as statutory law.

ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution)

Litigation—the process of resolving a dispute through the court system—is expensive and time consuming. Litigating even the simplest complaint is costly, and because of the backlog of cases pending in many courts, several years may pass before a case is actually tried. For these and other reasons, more and more businesspersons are turning to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as a means of settling their disputes. The great advantage of ADR is its flexibility. Methods of ADR range from the parties sitting down together and attempting to work out their differences to multinational corporations agreeing to resolve a dispute through a formal hearing before a panel of experts. Normally, the parties themselves can control how they will attempt to settle their dispute. They can decide what procedures will be used, whether a neutral third party will be present or make a decision, and whether that decision will be legally binding or nonbinding. ADR also offers more privacy than court proceedings and allows disputes to be resolved relatively quickly. Today, more than 90 percent of civil lawsuits are settled before trial using some form of ADR. Indeed, most states either require or encourage parties to undertake ADR prior to trial. Many federal courts have instituted ADR programs as well.

Kent and Natasha are both negligently speeding in a car accident that injures Jennifer. Jennifer seeks $330,000 in damages. The jury assesses fault as follows: Kent 50%, Natasha 40%, and Jennifer 10%. If the accident occurs in a state that has joint and several liability for all negligent defendants, what is the correct application of this concept?

Natasha could be liable for 90% of Jennifer's damages even if she is only assessed 40% fault.

Basic constitutional issues associated with due process

Other constitutional guarantees of great significance to Americans are mandated by the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments provide that no person shall be deprived "of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The due process clause of these constitutional amendments has two aspects—procedural and substantive. Note that the due process clause applies to "legal persons" (that is, corporations), as well as to individuals. Procedural Due Process Procedural due process requires that any government decision to take life, liberty, or property must be made equitably. In other words, the government must give a person proper notice and an opportunity to be heard. Fair procedures must be used in determining whether a person will be subjected to punishment or have some burden imposed on her or him. Fair procedure has been interpreted as requiring that the person have at least an opportunity to object to a proposed action before an impartial, neutral decision maker (who need not be a judge). Substantive due process focuses on the content of legislation rather than the fairness of procedures. Substantive due process limits what the government may do in its legislative and executive capacities. Legislation must be fair and reasonable in content and must further a legitimate governmental objective. If a law or other governmental action limits a fundamental right, the state must have a legitimate and compelling interest to justify its action. Fundamental rights include interstate travel, privacy, voting, marriage and family, and all First Amendment rights. Thus, for instance, a state must have a substantial reason for taking any action that infringes on a person's free speech rights. In situations not involving fundamental rights, a law or action does not violate substantive due process if it rationally relates to any legitimate government purpose. It is almost impossible for a law or action to fail the "rationality" test. Under this test, almost any business regulation will be upheld as reasonable.

Basic constitutional issues associated with equal protection

Other constitutional guarantees of great significance to Americans are mandated by the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, a state may not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to make the equal protection clause applicable to the federal government as well. Equal protection means that the government cannot enact laws that treat similarly situated individuals differently. Equal protection, like substantive due process, relates to the substance of a law or other governmental action. When a law or action limits the liberty of all persons, it may violate substantive due process. When a law or action limits the liberty of some persons but not others, it may violate the equal protection clause. In an equal protection inquiry, when a law or action distinguishes between or among individuals, the basis for the distinction—that is, the classification—is examined. Depending on the classification, the courts apply different levels of scrutiny, or "tests," to determine whether the law or action violates the equal protection clause. The courts use one of three standards: strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or the "rational basis" test. Strict Scrutiny If a law or action prohibits or inhibits some persons from exercising a fundamental right, the law or action will be subject to "strict scrutiny" by the courts. Under this standard, the classification must be necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Compelling state interests include remedying past unconstitutional or illegal discrimination but do not include correcting the general effects of "society's discrimination."

Equal Protection Clause and strict scrutiny

Other constitutional guarantees of great significance to Americans are mandated by the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, a state may not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to make the equal protection clause applicable to the federal government as well. Equal protection means that the government cannot enact laws that treat similarly situated individuals differently. Equal protection, like substantive due process, relates to the substance of a law or other governmental action. When a law or action limits the liberty of all persons, it may violate substantive due process. When a law or action limits the liberty of some persons but not others, it may violate the equal protection clause. In an equal protection inquiry, when a law or action distinguishes between or among individuals, the basis for the distinction—that is, the classification—is examined. Depending on the classification, the courts apply different levels of scrutiny, or "tests," to determine whether the law or action violates the equal protection clause. The courts use one of three standards: strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or the "rational basis" test. Strict Scrutiny If a law or action prohibits or inhibits some persons from exercising a fundamental right, the law or action will be subject to "strict scrutiny" by the courts. Under this standard, the classification must be necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Compelling state interests include remedying past unconstitutional or illegal discrimination but do not include correcting the general effects of "society's discrimination."

Select the correct explanation of stare decisis.

Previously decided cases serve as precedent for this court and lower courts in this jurisdiction.

Basic constitutional issues associated with privacy issues

Privacy Act: Regulates agency use and disclosure of data related to individuals

Shawn is interested in purchasing Abigail's lake house for $140,000. Abigail writes a contract with the legal description of the land, the purchase price, closing date and the full names of the buyer and seller. She signs the document, but Shawn does not. Assess the enforceability under the Statute of Frauds.

Shawn can enforce the contract under the Statute of Frauds, because Abigail signed the document.

Basic constitutional issues associated with the 5th ammendment

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Thus, in any court proceeding, an accused person cannot be forced to give testimony that might subject him or her to any criminal prosecution. The guarantee applies to both federal and state proceedings because the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (discussed shortly) extends the protection to state courts. The Fifth Amendment's guarantee against self-incrimination extends only to natural persons. Neither corporations nor partnerships receive Fifth Amendment protection. When a partnership is required to produce business records, it must therefore do so even if the information provided incriminates the individual partners of the firm. In contrast, sole proprietors and sole practitioners (those who individually own their businesses) cannot be compelled to produce their business records. These individuals have full protection against self-incrimination because they function in only one capacity, and there is no separate business entity.

First amendment protections of freedom of speech

The First Amendment states that the government may neither establish any religion nor prohibit the free exercise of religious practices. The first part of this constitutional provision is referred to as the establishment clause, and the second part is known as the free exercise clause. Government action, both federal and state, must be consistent with this constitutional mandate.

Basic constitutional issues associated with the 1st ammedment

The First Amendment states that the government may neither establish any religion nor prohibit the free exercise of religious practices. The first part of this constitutional provision is referred to as the establishment clause, and the second part is known as the free exercise clause. Government action, both federal and state, must be consistent with this constitutional mandate. The Establishment Clause The establishment clause prohibits the government from establishing a state-sponsored religion, as well as from passing laws that promote (aid or endorse) religion or show a preference for one religion over another. Although the establishment clause involves the separation of church and state, it does not require a complete separation. The Free Exercise Clause The free exercise clause guarantees that people can hold any religious beliefs they want or can hold no religious beliefs. The constitutional guarantee of personal freedom restricts only the actions of the government, however, and not those of individuals or private businesses. Restrictions Must Be Necessary The government must have a compelling state interest for restricting the free exercise of religion, and the restriction must be the only way

Basic constitutional issues associated with the 4th ammendment

The Fourth Amendment protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." Before searching or seizing private property, law enforcement officers must usually obtain a search warrant—an order from a judge or other public official authorizing the search or seizure. Because of the strong government interest in protecting the public, however, a warrant normally is not required for seizures of spoiled or contaminated food. Nor are warrants required for searches of businesses in such highly regulated industries as liquor, guns, and strip mining. To obtain a search warrant, law enforcement officers must convince a judge that they have reasonable grounds, or probable cause, to believe a search will reveal evidence of a specific illegality. To establish probable cause, the officers must have trustworthy evidence that would convince a reasonable person that the proposed search or seizure is more likely justified than not.

Federal regulation of Interstate Commerce

The Sherman Act applies only to restraints that have a significant impact on interstate commerce. Courts have generally held that any activity that substantially affects interstate commerce falls within the scope of the Sherman Act. As will be discussed later in this chapter, the Sherman Act also extends to U.S. nationals abroad who are engaged in activities that affect U.S. foreign commerce. Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over antitrust cases brought under the Sherman Act. State laws regulate local restraints on competition, and state courts decide claims brought under those laws.

Requirements to set aside an arbitration award

The arbitrator's decision is called an award. It is usually the final word on the matter. Although the parties may appeal an arbitrator's decision, a court's review of the decision will be much more restricted in scope than an appellate court's review of a trial court's decision. The general view is that because the parties were free to frame the issues and set the powers of the arbitrator at the outset, they cannot complain about the results. A court will set aside an award only in the event of one of the following: The arbitrator's conduct or "bad faith" substantially prejudiced the rights of one of the parties. The award violates an established public policy. The arbitrator exceeded her or his powers—that is, arbitrated issues that the parties did not agree to submit to arbitration.

Select the FALSE statement concerning employment law.

The employer is strictly liable for sexual harassment because of the retaliation by the supervisor. Other Options: The employer is liable only if it should have known of the wrongdoing and took no action to stop the improper behavior. Only the supervisor is liable; the employer has intra-corporate immunity. The employer is not liable because not sex actually occurred.

Jurisdiction in Federal District Court

The federal court system is basically a three-tiered model consisting of U.S. district courts (trial courts of general jurisdiction) and various courts of limited jurisdiction, U.S. courts of appeals (intermediate courts of appeals), and the United States Supreme Court. Unlike state court judges, who are usually elected, federal court judges—including the justices of the Supreme Court—are appointed by the president of the United States, subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Federal judges receive lifetime appointments under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which states that federal judges "hold their offices during good Behaviour." In the entire history of the United States, only seven federal judges have been removed from office through impeachment proceedings. Certain federal court officers are not chosen in the way just described. This chapter's Managerial Strategy feature describes how U.S. magistrate judges are selected.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

The highest level of the three-tiered federal court system is the United States Supreme Court. According to the U.S. Constitution, there is only one national Supreme Court. All other courts in the federal system are considered "inferior." Congress is empowered to create inferior courts as it deems necessary. The inferior courts that Congress has created include the second tier in our model—the U.S. circuit courts of appeals—as well as the district courts and the various federal courts of limited, or specialized, jurisdiction. The United States Supreme Court consists of nine justices. Although the Supreme Court has original, or trial, jurisdiction in rare instances (set forth in Article III, Sections 1 and 2), most of its work is as an appeals court. The Supreme Court can review any case decided by any of the federal courts of appeals. It also has appellate authority over cases involving federal questions that have been decided in the state courts. The Supreme Court is the final authority on the Constitution and federal law.

Basic constitutional issues associated with eminent domain

The power of a government to take land from private citizens for public use on the payment of just compensation.

Doctrine of Stare Decisis

The practice of deciding new cases with reference to former decisions, or precedents, became a cornerstone of the English and American judicial systems. The practice formed a doctrine known as stare decisis,Footnote a Latin phrase meaning "to stand on decided cases." Under the doctrine of stare decisis, judges are obligated to follow the precedents established within their jurisdictions. The doctrine of stare decisis helps the courts to be more efficient because, if other courts have analyzed a similar case, their legal reasoning and opinions can serve as guides. Stare decisis also makes the law more stable and predictable. If the law on a subject is well settled, someone bringing a case can usually rely on the court to rule based on what the law has been in the past.

Negotiation

The simplest form of ADR is negotiation, a process in which the parties attempt to settle their dispute informally, with or without attorneys to represent them. Attorneys frequently advise their clients to negotiate a settlement voluntarily before they proceed to trial. Parties may even try to negotiate a settlement during a trial or after the trial but before an appeal. Negotiation traditionally involves just the parties themselves and (typically) their attorneys. The attorneys, though, are advocates—they are obligated to put their clients' interests first.

Writ of Certiorari

To bring a case before the Supreme Court, a party requests the Court to issue a writ of certiorari.Footnote A writ of certiorari is an order issued by the Supreme Court to a lower court requiring the latter to send it the record of the case for review. The Court will not issue a writ unless at least four of the nine justices approve of it. This is called the rule of four. Whether the Court will issue a writ of certiorari is entirely within its discretion, and most petitions for writs are denied. (Although thousands of cases are filed with the Supreme Court each year, it hears, on average, fewer than one hundred of these cases.)Footnote A denial of the request to issue a writ of certiorari is not a decision on the merits of the case, nor does it indicate agreement with the lower court's opinion. Also, denial of the writ has no value as a precedent. Denial simply means that the lower court's decision remains the law in that jurisdiction.

Importance of the Interstate Commerce Clause in the regulation of business and other federalism issues such as preemption, and the 14th amendment

To prevent states from establishing laws and regulations that would interfere with trade and commerce among the states, the Constitution expressly delegated to the national government the power to regulate interstate commerce. Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution explicitly permits Congress "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." This clause, referred to as the commerce clause, has had a greater impact on business than any other provision in the Constitution. The commerce clause provides the basis for the national government's extensive regulation of state and even local affairs. Initially, the courts interpreted the commerce clause to apply only to commerce between the states (interstate commerce) and not commerce within the states (intrastate commerce). That changed in 1824, however, when the United States Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Gibbons v. Ogden.Footnote The Court held that commerce within the states could also be regulated by the national government as long as the commerce substantially affected commerce involving more than one state. As the nation grew and faced new kinds of problems, the commerce clause became a vehicle for the additional expansion of the national government's regulatory powers. Even activities that seemed purely local in nature came under the regulatory reach of the national government if those activities were deemed to substantially affect interstate commerce. In 1942, the Supreme Court held that wheat production by an individual farmer intended wholly for consumption on his own farm was subject to federal regulation. Today, at least theoretically, the power over commerce authorizes the national government to regulate almost every commercial enterprise in the United States. The breadth of the commerce clause permits the national government to legislate in areas in which Congress has not explicitly been granted power. Only occasionally has the Supreme Court curbed the national government's regulatory authority under the commerce clause.Footnote The Supreme Court has, for instance, allowed the federal government to regulate noncommercial activities relating to medical marijuana that take place wholly within a state's borders.

longarm statutes and diversity jurisdiction

Under the authority of a state long arm statute, a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over certain out-of-state defendants based on activities that took place within the state. Before a court can exercise jurisdiction, though, it must be demonstrated that the defendant had sufficient contacts, or minimum contacts, with the state to justify the jurisdiction. Federal district courts can also exercise original jurisdiction over cases involving diversity of citizenship. The most common type of diversity jurisdictionFootnote requires both of the following: The plaintiff and defendant must be residents of different states. The dollar amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is a citizen of both the state in which it is incorporated and the state in which its principal place of business is located. A case involving diversity of citizenship can be filed in the appropriate federal district court. (If the case starts in a state court, it can sometimes be transferred, or "removed," to a federal court.) A large percentage of the cases filed in federal courts each year are based on diversity of citizenship. As noted before, a federal court will apply federal law in cases involving federal questions. In a case based on diversity of citizenship, in contrast, a federal court will apply the relevant state law (which is often the law of the state in which the court sits). The following case focused on whether diversity jurisdiction existed. A boat owner was severely burned when his boat exploded after being overfilled with fuel at a marina in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The owner filed a suit in a federal district court against the marina and sought a jury trial. The defendant argued that a plaintiff in an admiralty, or maritime, case (a case based on something that happened at sea) does not have a right to a jury trial unless the court has diversity jurisdiction. The defendant claimed that because both parties were citizens of the Virgin Islands, the court had no such jurisdiction.

longarm statutes and subject matter jurisdiction

Under the authority of a state long arm statute, a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over certain out-of-state defendants based on activities that took place within the state. Before a court can exercise jurisdiction, though, it must be demonstrated that the defendant had sufficient contacts, or minimum contacts, with the state to justify the jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the limitations on the types of cases a court can hear. Certain courts are empowered to hear certain kinds of disputes. In both the federal and the state court systems, there are courts of general (unlimited) jurisdiction and courts of limited jurisdiction

Common Law

a body of general rules that applied throughout the entire English realm. Eventually, the common law tradition became part of the heritage of all nations that were once British colonies, including the United States. Before the Norman Conquest (1066), disputes had been settled according to the local legal customs and traditions in various regions of the country. The king's courts sought to establish a uniform set of customs for the country as a whole. What evolved in these courts was the beginning of the common law

Statutory law also includes local _______________________

ordinances—regulations passed by municipal or county governing units to deal with matters not covered by federal or state law. Ordinances commonly have to do with city or county land use (zoning ordinances), building and safety codes, and other matters affecting the local community.

Civil law spells out the rights and duties that exist between.

persons and between persons and their governments, as well as the relief available when a person's rights are violated. Typically, in a civil case, a private party sues another private party who has failed to comply with a duty. (Note that the government can also sue a party for a civil law violation.) Much of the law that we discuss in this text is civil law, including contract law and tort law

(long arm statute) the minimum-contacts requirement means

that the defendant must have sufficient connection to the state for the judge to conclude that it is fair for the state to exercise power over the defendant. For instance, if an out-of-state defendant caused an automobile accident within the state or breached a contract formed there, a court will usually find that minimum contacts exist to exercise jurisdiction over that defendant. Similarly, a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant that is sued for selling defective goods within the state.