ch 2 the courts and jurisdiction

Waiver by Appearance

- As mentioned, if a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, any judgment rendered by the court is void. To an extent, the same is true of personal jurisdiction. However, although the parties to a lawsuit cannot waive, or give up, the requirement of subject matter jurisdiction, a defendant can waive, or give up, the requirement of personal jurisdiction. A waiver of personal jurisdiction means that an individual voluntarily allows a court to hear a case against her even though the court would not otherwise have the power to do so. Furthermore, in some courts, if the defendant makes a general appearance in court and does not properly object to personal jurisdiction, she automatically waives any defect in personal jurisdiction. A defendant makes a general appearance whenever she files a pleading or takes part in the proceedings by doing anything other than objecting to jurisdiction.

Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction

- Another substitute for personal jurisdiction is quasi in rem jurisdiction. For quasi in rem jurisdiction to exist, various requirements must be met. First, a defendant must own some property within the state, although the property need not be the subject of the lawsuit. Second, any judgment is limited to the value of the property within the state. Third, that property is usually brought before the court at the beginning of the lawsuit through an attachment proceeding. In an attachment proceeding, the court usually orders that the property be seized and remain under the control of the court until the case is resolved. - If a court hears a case based on in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction, due process still requires that the exercise of jurisdiction be fair and that the defendant be notified of the lawsuit. Notice is accomplished through service of process under the laws of the state in which the action is pending.

Jurisdiction over Plaintiff

- Personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff seldom, if ever, presents any legal problems. The plaintiffs always file the lawsuit and select the trial court. Therefore, they cannot complain that the court has no power over them. Having asked the court to make a decision concerning their rights, plaintiffs have no basis to challenge the court's right to do so.

Challenging Subject Matter Jurisdiction

- A court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction has no power to decide a case. If it attempts to do so, that judgment is void and can be challenged at any time. Subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged in different ways, depending on where the lawsuit is filed. One common way to attack subject matter jurisdiction is by filing a motion to dismiss the case.

Challenging Personal Jurisdiction

- A defendant must exercise care in challenging personal jurisdiction because doing so in an improper manner may inadvertently confer personal jurisdiction on the court. Although federal courts allow defendants to challenge personal jurisdiction in the answer to the complaint, in some courts personal jurisdiction must be attacked by a special appearance (an appearance for the sole purpose of questioning the court's jurisdiction). This is often done by filing a motion to quash service of summons. A motion to quash service of summons is a request that the court invalidate any service of the complaint and summons, thereby preventing the plaintiff from pursuing her lawsuit. In federal court, a motion to quash service of summons is an alternative way of challenging personal jurisdiction.

Federal Court System

- A federal court system was authorized by the U.S. Constitution, Article III, which created the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to create inferior courts. Today those inferior courts include trial courts and appellate courts. The trial courts are most commonly known as the U.S. district courts (or federal district courts), and include various specialized courts such as the U.S. Claims Court and the U.S. Court of International Trade. The appellate courts are known as U.S. courts of appeals (or federal courts of appeals).

Venue

- An analysis of subject matter jurisdiction tells a plaintiff whether to file an action in federal court or state court. An analysis of personal jurisdiction tells a plaintiff in which state or states to file. Personal jurisdiction is statewide. Choosing the court in the proper geographical area of the state is a question of venue. - Lawsuits should be filed and heard in a court that has proper venue. However, unlike jurisdiction, a court's lack of proper venue does not render a judgment void. If a defendant does not object to improper venue, she waives the right to object to the judgment rendered by the court.

Changing Venue

- Because venue does not relate to the court's basic power to hear a case, under proper circumstances it can be changed. However, the place of trial can be changed only to another court that has jurisdiction. To change venue, a party makes a formal written request of the court where the lawsuit was filed. This is done by making a motion for change of venue.However, a court must have a good reason before it considers transferring the case to another location. Some of the more common reasons include the fact that in the original location the parties cannot get a fair trial, or the case was not filed in the proper court to begin with. A case might also be transferred for the convenience of the witnesses.

Removal to Federal Court

- In cases where concurrent jurisdiction exists, the plaintiff decides where to file the lawsuit. However, if the plaintiff chooses to file in a state court, the defendant usually has the right to have the case transferred or removed to the federal court. The defendant accomplishes this by following the requirements described in the U.S. Code (28 U.S.C. § 1446). After the plaintiff files a complaint in state court, removal occurs as follows: 1. Within 30 days of service or receipt of papers, the defendant files in federal court the following: a. a notice of removal (a document requesting that the case be transferred to the federal court) and b. copies of all process, pleadings, and orders that the defendant has received. 2. The defendant files these documents in the federal district and division located in the state where the plaintiff originally filed the complaint. 3. The defendant gives written notice to all adverse parties and the clerk of state court that notice of removal has been filed. - Concurrent jurisdiction can also exist between two or more states. That is, where a case belongs in a state court system, more than one state may have subject matter jurisdiction. This would be determined by the facts of the case and the appropriate state laws.

Courts of Appeals

- Courts of appeals (or appellate courts) are primarily courts of review. These courts examine the trial court proceedings to guarantee that parties receive a fair trial. A case is not retried in an appellate court. The appellate courts review the trial court's process by reviewing a written, verbatim transcript or record of the lower court documents and court proceedings. The parties also file legal briefs and may present oral arguments supporting their position. - The appellate court's role is to determine if any legal errors occurred in the trial court and, if so, whether the error resulted in an unfair trial. A legal error is an error in the way the law is interpreted or applied to a situation. Examples of legal errors include a judge's misstating the law when instructing the jury or allowing attorneys to introduce evidence that is not relevant to the case or that has been improperly obtained. The appellate court is not allowed to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on factual questions. If any reasonable basis for the factual findings exists, the appellate court must accept the trial court's findings. - Appellate review is usually conducted by a three-judge panel and cases are decided by a majority vote (two of the three). Because of their function, courts of appeals are called courts of appellate jurisdiction. The term higher courts is sometimes used to describe these courts. In exercising appellate jurisdiction, a reviewing court has the power to affirm the decision (uphold the lower court), reverse the decision (change the lower court's decision), or reverse and remand the case (change the lower court's decision and send it back to the trial court to be retried).

State Court Systems

- Each state has a court system established pursuant to the laws of the state. For the most part, states pattern their court structures after the federal system. All states have trial courts and some sort of appellate, or review, courts. Most states also have a state supreme court or a court of last resort. The role of each of these courts is comparable to their equivalents in the federal system. The names, however, differ from state to state. For example, general trial courts in California are called superior courts. In New York, trial courts are called supreme courts. In other states, trial courts are known as circuit courts, city courts, county courts, surrogate courts, chancery courts, and courts of common pleas. Many states have additional specialty trial courts such as probate court, juvenile court, and family court. Some states have different levels of trial courts. - In addition, many state court systems have a small claims court (the people's court). In these courts, parties who are suing for small amounts of money go through a simplified litigation process. Attorneys are usually not involved, and all pleadings are extremely simple. These courts are intended to afford speedy legal relief in small cases where normal litigation costs would preclude other actions.

Diversity of Citizenship

- Even though a particular type of case is usually in state court, such as automobile accidents, federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction if diversity of citizenship exists (28 U.S.C. § 1332). Jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship has two requirements: the plaintiff and defendant are not residents of the same state, and if the case is a claim for money damages, the damages claimed must exceed $75,000. - Most cases require complete diversity before the federal court can hear a case. This means that no plaintiff and no defendant can be citizens of the same state. Diversity also exists when a dispute is between citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state. - Complete diversity is not required for certain class action lawsuits. In these cases, if the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, the federal courts have jurisdiction if diversity exists between any plaintiff and any defendant. Several special rules apply and the U.S. Code should always be checked (28 U.S.C. § 1332). - When plaintiffs and defendants in a case are individuals, state citizenship is normally determined by the individuals' primary residence. In contrast, corporate parties are considered citizens of both the state in which they are incorporated and the state in which they maintain their principal place of business. In a recent case, Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the principal place of business for a corporation is based on its "nerve center," which the Court defined as "the place where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities." Corporations may thus be citizens of more than one state.

State Long-Arm Statutes

- Even though the exercise of jurisdiction may be constitutionally permissible, the state must also allow it. State laws describing the circumstances under which the state may exercise jurisdiction over nonresident defendants are known as long-arm statutes.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction in the State Courts

- Except for cases that must be brought in federal court, each state has the right to determine the subject matter jurisdiction of the courts within that state. Subject matter jurisdiction of state courts is determined by the laws of the state. If a dispute arises under those laws, the state courts generally have subject matter jurisdiction. Some federal laws, such as civil rights laws, also allow a state court to hear disputes arising under the federal law. - federal courts: Cases involving federal laws • civil rights • discrimination • social security • broadcasting Cases against the U.S. government Intellectual property cases such as patent and copyright disputes Corporate securities cases Admiralty cases (cases arising on the high seas) Cases involving rights under treaties Disputes between states - state courts: Cases involving state constitutional or state law issues Most personal injury cases • automobile accidents • medical and other malpractice • product liability Real property disputes Landlord/tenant disputes Contract disputes Business disputes Family law cases Probate matters - federal or state courts: State law disputes where diversity of citizenship exists Certain civil rights cases Federal constitutional issues Cases involving certain federal laws - State court systems often have more than one level of trial court. Subject matter jurisdiction requires that a case be filed in the correct court. States usually have at least one trial court that has general jurisdiction in civil cases; that is, the power to hear any kind of case except those that must be brought in federal court. However, unlike the federal system,where there is only one level of trial court, many states have created special trial courts that have limited subject matter jurisdiction. A court of limited jurisdiction has authority to hear only certain kinds of cases. For example, some courts have authority to hear limited types of cases, such as juvenile proceedings or family law matters; some courts with limited jurisdiction are only empowered to hear cases in which the amount of money in dispute is a limited amount. These courts are often known as municipal courts, district courts, or justice courts.

Notice

- Fairness demands that before a court can decide the rights of a defendant in a lawsuit, the defendant should be given proper notice of the action. This is known as service of process. How service can be accomplished is determined by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the lawsuit is pending.

Personal Jurisdiction

- In addition to having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, a court must also have jurisdiction over the parties. This authority, known as personal jurisdiction, means that the court has the power to render a judgment that affects the rights of the parties before the court.

Miscellaneous Federal Trial Courts

- In addition to the U.S. district courts, the federal court system includes various specialized trial courts, including bankruptcy courts, the U.S. Court of International Trade, and the U.S. Claims Court. The bankruptcy courts are an "adjunct" to each district court. All bankruptcy proceedings originate there. The U.S. Court of International Trade deals with cases involving international trade and custom duties. The U.S. Claims Court handles suits against the federal government for money damages in numerous civil matters (except for tort claims that must be brought in district court).

Jurisdiction

- Jurisdiction is the power or authority that a court has to hear a particular case. - Before filing a lawsuit, the attorney for Raeburn must decide which of those many courts is appropriate for filing that lawsuit. This is a question of jurisdiction. - In many cases, the question of jurisdiction is relatively simple to answer. If a lawsuit arises under a state law and all of the parties are residents of that state, then jurisdiction is in the state courts. If a lawsuit arises under a federal law and all parties are residents of the same state, then jurisdiction is usually in the federal court located in the state of residence of the parties.

Courts of Last Resort

- Many court systems have two levels of courts with appellate jurisdiction, intermediate courts of appeals and one court of last resort, often referred to as a supreme court. Like intermediate courts of appeals, courts of last resort are primarily courts of appellate jurisdiction. They review the proceedings at the trial level and at the intermediate appellate level. Unlike intermediate courts of appeals that must review cases in which the parties request a review, courts of last resort generally have discretionary right to review the cases. In other words, these courts hear only those appeals that they want to hear. - Court Functions Trial Court: Evidence presented, facts determined, and appropriate law applied Intermediate Court of Appeals: Trial court proceedings reviewed for legal errors that resulted in unfair trial; review is usually mandatory - Court of Last Resort (Supreme Court): Discretionary review of trial court proceedings and appellate court decision

Jurisdiction over Defendant

- No court has unlimited rights to exercise personal jurisdiction. Such a result is basically unfair. All state courts have personal jurisdiction over those who reside within the state. Thus, if a person resides within a state, that person can be sued in any court within that state. Whether a court has jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant depends on two factors. First, the exercise of jurisdiction must be in accordance with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Second, the exercise of jurisdiction must be in accordance with state law. Federal courts generally have personal jurisdiction over defendants if the state courts in the state in which the federal court is located would have personal jurisdiction. In other words, if a state trial court in California has personal jurisdiction over a defendant, then the federal trial courts located in California also have personal jurisdiction.

the courts and litigation

- Selecting a proper court first requires an understanding of the U.S. court systems. Different court systems exist for each of the states. A separate court system exists for the federal government. Within each system you also find many different courts. Although court systems differ from one another in many ways, they have some characteristics in common. All court systems have trial courts and courts of appeals or review. Many court systems have two levels of review courts: intermediate courts of appeals (in some jurisdictions called courts of appeal) and highest courts of appeal or courts of last resort (sometimes referred to as supreme courts). The function of all trial courts is similar, as are the functions of courts of appeals and courts of last resort.

Federal Court Venue

- Some states have only one federal district court. Larger states, however, have more than one district located with their boundaries. Although all of the districts within the state have personal jurisdiction in a particular case, venue may be limited. The general venue statute for federal courts is 28 U.S.C. § 1391, but several different statutes control specific situations. The general statute provides two locations for proper venue and further provides that these locations are proper for cases based on diversity of citizenship or for cases not based on diversity: 1. the judicial district where any defendant resides, as long as all of the defendants reside in the same state, or 2. the judicial district where the acts that form the basis of the lawsuit occurred. - Where there are multiple defendants in a case, sometimes neither of these locations is possible. - If the action cannot be brought in any district meeting, these criteria (i.e., if all defendants do not reside in the same state or if the lawsuit arose from acts that took place in a location that no longer has personal jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. § 1391 provides an alternative venue: "[I]f there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action." - diverstiy of citizenship venue: (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. - not based on diversity venue: (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. - Corporations present special issues with venue. In determining the residence of a defendant, a corporation is considered to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the lawsuit is filed. If a state has more than one judicial district, however, the code provides that a corporation "shall be deemed to reside in any district in that State within which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate State, and, if there is no such district, the corporation shall be deemed to reside in the district within which it has the most significant contacts." - In addition to the general venue statute, other sections of the code provide special venue rules. For example, lawsuits relating to copyrights or trademarks may be brought in the district in which the defendant or his agent resides or may be found, and patent infringement actions may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business (28 U.S.C. § 1400). Any civil action by a stockholder on behalf of his corporation may be brought in any judicial district where the corporation might have sued the same defendants (28 U.S.C. § 1401). And generally, when the U.S. government is the defendant in a lawsuit, venue is proper in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides (28 U.S.C. § 1402). Special rules also apply to some complex litigation matters where similar cases have been brought in different courts. The code (28 U.S.C. § 1407) gives a special judicial panel on multidistrict litigation the power to make orders regarding venue for pretrial proceedings for the convenience of witnesses and interests of justice. - Sometimes, a statute that creates substantive rights also provides for venue.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

- Sometimes cases consist of more than one type of claim, one of which is a matter of federal law and the other of which is a matter of state law. Even if a matter is not normally within the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts, it is often heard in federal court if it is in conjunction with a case that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. This is known as supplemental jurisdiction. This is also known as pendent or ancillary jurisdiction.

In Rem Jurisdiction

- Sometimes, even though personal jurisdiction may be questionable or even nonexistent, the court can hear a case if it has jurisdiction over property that is the subject of a dispute. This is known as in rem jurisdiction and is a substitute in some cases for personal jurisdiction - In exercising in rem jurisdiction, a court is limited to rendering judgments that affect only the property. The court cannot render personal judgments against the defendant that do not concern that property. For example, in the preceding case, suppose that Martin Flynn claimed that he was disinherited because of slanderous remarks made to his father by his brother. In addition to challenging the will, he might also wish to sue his brother for slander in the same action. For a court to hear this action, the Pennsylvania court would need to have personal jurisdiction over Michael.

Multijurisdictional Litigation (28 U.S.C. § 1407)

- Special jurisdictional rules can apply to complex cases where similar cases are filed in more than one U.S. district court. This may occur when a defective product, such as an automobile, results in injuries to numerous victims living in different states. Injured parties often file a lawsuit in the district in which they live, resulting in numerous cases arising out of the same conduct. The law allows these cases to be transferred to one district for the purpose of pretrial proceedings, hoping that the matters will settle. If a case does not settle, the matter is transferred back to the original court for trial.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

- Subject matter jurisdiction determines whether a court has the power to hear a particular type of case - The first issue in any case is to determine whether a case belongs in federal court or in state court. Various laws dictate the kinds of cases that can be brought in federal courts and the kinds that can be brought in state courts.

Choice of Law

- When a federal court exercises jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, the substantive law controlling the dispute is not found in federal law - When hearing a diversity case, therefore, the federal court must apply some state law to the substantive issues in the case. Usually, but not always, the federal court applies the substantive law of the state in which the federal court is situated.

Constitutional Limitations

- The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires "due process of law" in civil as well as criminal cases. In the leading case of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant unless that defendant has sufficient contacts with the state to satisfy "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Courts can usually exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if that person or entity is doing business within the state and therefore has the opportunity to avail itself of the state's laws and state's courts. The courts refer to this as "purposeful availment." However, it is not necessary that a defendant is actually conducting an ongoing business within the state. Constitutional requirements are often satisfied with less. In the International Shoe case, the Supreme Court found that the state of Washington had personal jurisdiction over a business that hired shoe salesmen within the state and provided them with samples. Occasionally, the company rented rooms to display the shoes. The salesmen took orders that were transmitted to the company's office out of state. Products were shipped from out of state to Washington addresses. The company had no offices in the state of Washington. - On the other hand, personal jurisdiction was found to be lacking where defendants, an automobile wholesaler and a retailer, sold an automobile in New York. The buyers, claiming that the automobile was defective, sued the defendants in Oklahoma where they suffered an accident. Defendants had no other connection to Oklahoma. - In a series of recent cases, courts were asked to determine questions of personal jurisdiction of parties who maintain Web sites for their businesses. In general, courts find personal jurisdiction where there is some possibility of "interaction" with those visiting the Web site. That is, if a customer can order products through the site, personal jurisdiction probably exists. If the site is informational only, then personal jurisdiction probably will not exist.

U.S. Supreme Court

- The U.S. court system has one Supreme Court, consisting of nine justices. The Court is located in Washington, D.C., and holds its sessions from October through June. Primarily, the Supreme Court exercises appellate jurisdiction. In most cases, the exercise of that appellate jurisdiction is discretionary. With limited exceptions, the Supreme Court is not required to hear cases in which a party requests review. In deciding whether to grant a hearing in a case, the Court considers the importance of the decision not only to the aggrieved parties but also to society as a whole. The Court also considers whether the courts of appeals have decided cases in contradictory ways. The Supreme Court often hears cases to resolve disagreements between various appellate courts. - To request a hearing in the Supreme Court, a party files with the Court a document called a petition for a writ of certiorari. In this petition the party explains why the Supreme Court should consider the case. The justices then consider each petition for writ of certiorari and vote on whether to grant it. For a petition to be granted, four of the nine justices must agree. If the petition for the writ of certiorari is not granted, then the decision of the court of appeals stands. If a petition for writ of certiorari is granted, however, it does not mean that the party has won the case. The party has only managed to get a full hearing (review) by the Supreme Court. If the petition is granted and the writ is issued, the case proceeds much like an appeal in the appellate courts. The justices consider the lower court transcripts. The attorneys submit legal briefs and present oral arguments to the Court. To prevail before the Supreme Court, a party must have the vote of five out of the nine justices, or a simple majority. (In the event that fewer than nine justices are hearing the case, it takes a majority to win. Should there be a tie vote, the decision of the court of appeals stands.) - Although the Supreme Court is part of the federal court system, it can and does review cases originally tried in state courts, as long as some federal or constitutional issue exists. Again, there is usually no right to have such cases heard by the Supreme Court. As with appeals from federal court, Supreme Court review of state cases is discretionary. - Although the Supreme Court is primarily a court of review, in certain cases it has original jurisdiction. Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides: In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned (Art. III, § 2.1) the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exception, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

U.S. District Courts

- The United States and its territories are divided into districts, each having a federal district court. Some larger districts are further subdivided into divisions. Each state has at least one federal district court in its boundaries and, depending on population, a state may have more. The number of judges assigned to each district varies according to need. District courts are trial courts. Thus, in the Weigh To Go case mentioned in this chapter's Commentary, if a lawsuit were pursued in the federal court system, it would start in a district court. The complaint and answer are filed in that court, and any trial takes place there.

U.S. Courts of Appeals

- The United States is divided into geographic appellate circuits, or regions. These courts hear appeals from district courts within their boundaries. The U.S. courts of appeals are primarily courts of review, having appellate jurisdiction. These courts review the proceedings that take place in a district court. In addition to the courts of appeals for each of the 12 geographic appellate districts, there is a 13th federal court of appeals with national jurisdiction. This court hears appeals in patent, copyright, and trademark cases from any district court and all appeals from the U.S. Claims Court and the U.S. Court of International Trade. Generally, when any of the courts of appeals reviews a lower court decision, that decision is reviewed by a three-judge panel, and the majority decision prevails. However, similar to the district courts, the total number of justices in each appellate court varies according to need.

Trial Courts

- The civil litigation process usually begins in a trial courtwhere the parties to a lawsuit file pleadings and present evidence to a judge or jury. Trial courts are also called lower courts. The primary function of a trial court in civil cases is to resolve disputes between parties by first determining the true facts and then applying appropriate legal principles. - Once a factual dispute is resolved, appropriate legal principles are applied to those facts—principles that for the most part have been established by the legislature and by higher courts. In the preceding factual situation, if a trial court judge or jury determines that Cassidy ran a stop sign, causing injuries to Raeburn, the legal principles of negligence are applied and the judge or jury could award Raeburn money damages. Because litigation usually begins in a trial court, this court is sometimes referred to as a court of original jurisdiction. Jurisdiction refers to the power or authority of a court to hear a particular case. A court of original jurisdiction is a court where the case begins and is tried.

Exclusive versus Concurrent Jurisdiction

- When federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction, sometimes state courts also have jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts can be either exclusive or concurrent. Exclusive jurisdiction means that the action must be brought in federal court. Concurrent jurisdictionmeans that it can be brought either in federal court or in state court. Under federal law, certain types of cases must be in federal court. Examples of federal court exclusive jurisdiction include maritime cases, patent cases, and bankruptcy cases. However, other types of cases, such as employment discrimination or civil rights violations, can be litigated in either federal or state court. When federal jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, jurisdiction is almost always concurrent with a state

Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts

- The federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction. They hear cases only when the Constitution, treaties, or some federal law specifically confers jurisdiction on those courts. Generally, in criminal cases the federal courts have jurisdiction when the offense is a crime under federal law. In civil cases, the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction in the following circumstances: the case involves a constitutional issue; the case involves a treaty; the case involves a federal law, such as those that regulate bankruptcy, patent and copyright, discrimination, or maritime issues; the U.S. government is a plaintiff or defendant in the lawsuit; or the plaintiff and defendant are not citizens of the same state (diversity of citizenship).

The Courts and the Internet

- Today's courts, like most businesses, rely heavily on the Internet to function efficiently. A court's Web site provides essential factual and legal information for attorneys as well as litigants. You will generally find the following information: the court's physical address (or addresses), often with a link to an online map with directions the telephone numbers for the various departments within the court, often including telephone numbers for each judge's staff court hours (essential information for anyone filing documents) court calendars selected documents and other information about pending and past cases local rules of court local forms for use in the court instructions for electronic filing of documents - In addition to providing information, the Internet has changed the way courts conduct business. Many courts allow documents to be electronically filed. Many judges post "tentative rulings" in law and motion matters prior to the time for the hearing on the matter. In some proceedings, attorneys are allowed to appear by telephone, rather than personally. Litigation attorneys and paralegals must familiarize themselves with the various procedures and requirements connected with the court's use of the Internet.

State Court Venue

- Venue in state court actions is, of course, determined by state law. As a general rule, however, actions usually can be maintained in the county in which the defendant resides or where the cause of action arises. In different types of cases, other counties might also have proper venue. For example, in contract cases, actions can often be heard in the county in which the contract was made, was to be performed, or was breached. In lawsuits affecting title to real estate, the action is normally heard wherever the real estate is located.