Subject Matter Jurisdiction In Courts

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.

Subject matter jurisdiction allows a court the authority to only hear case that are in regards to a specific topic. Although restrictive in its ability to hear cases based on the topic, subject matter jurisdiction can specialize in a specific case type. Courts such as tax, federal claims and bankruptcy are examples courts which have subject matter jurisdiction.

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)

The state trial courts of general jurisdiction are the district courts. The district court has exclusive jurisdiction on felony cases, as well as divorce cases, cases involving title to land, and election contest cases. It shares jurisdiction with the county courts, and in some case justice of the peace courts, for civil cases the lowest limit for hearing a case is a mere $200 in controversy, while in Justice of the Peace courts can hear cases up to $5,000. In a "catchall" provision it hears all cases in which jurisdiction is not placed in another trial court.

The subject matter jurisdiction is the courts authority to judge particular lawsuits in federal or state courts. As discussed in the textbook, “Subject-matter jurisdiction determines which court system may hear a particular case” (Kubasek, pg.44, 2009). Novelty One’s website states that all complaints must be settled with the state of Florida when filed against Funny Face or Novelty One. Therefore, the lawsuit against Novelty One will need to be filed with the state of Florida courts.

“The State Trial Courts of general jurisdiction are the main Trial Courts in the State system. These Courts are Circuits Courts, Superior Courts of common pleasand even in New York, Supreme Courts. In certain cases, these courts can hear appeals from trial courtsof limited jurisdiction. The State Courts include Intermediate Appellate Courts and Supreme Courts”. (United States Courts).

All of these issues are handled within the judicial system, but depending on the issue, will be handled at different levels. As noted above, there are different levels in the hierarchy of the U. S. judicial system. These courts have separate and unique structures between the federal and state level. The federal court system is broken down between trial courts, appellate courts, and the Supreme Court (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2010). This is very similar to the structure of the California state court system, which also has trial courts, appellate courts, and the State Supreme Court (Judicial Council of California, 2016). The difference between the two is in jurisdiction. The federal court system is very limited in that they can only hear matters involving federal law, disputes among states, disputes involving diversity of citizenship, and disputes where the United States itself is named as a party (Reed et al., 2016). While the federal system is significantly limited in its jurisdiction, California trial courts, or Superior Courts, are courts of general jurisdiction, and can hear civil, criminal, family, probate, mental health, juvenile, and traffic matters arising within the State of California (Judicial Council of California,

. While state courts tend to have general jurisdiction, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal Courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction bestowed by U.S. Const. Art. III, sec. 2. The federal courts are have jurisdiction to decide federal questions (28 U.S.C. § 1331) as well as cases or controversies between two different states or diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332). There are also specific court jurisdictions. Bankruptcy court can only hear bankruptcy claims, Tax court hears tax claims. Federal District Courts have original jurisdiction in federal criminal and civil cases. The U.S. Courts of Appeals have appellate jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction as well as some general original

The purpose of this essay is to analyze state court jurisdiction issues. To do so, this essay will look over the district courts, small claims court, and county courts. This essay will discuss their differences in cases, expenses, and processes and how they are limited.

• Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction-The court doesn't have jurisdiction, or the authority, to rule on the matter brought before

Diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction are the two most common and the most important. One of the primary reasoning for diversity jurisdiction is to prevent state courts from being potentially biased when the two suing parties reside in different states and the hearing is in a state that could be favorable for the in-state party. Diversity jurisdiction occurs when the case involves parties are from different states and the disputed amount exceeds $75,000. Federal question jurisdiction would exist when a basic portion so the plaintiff’s case involves a part of the Constitution, laws, or treaties for the United States. For example, a plaintiff is suing a police department over mistreatment due to race or sex. (Mallor, 2016, p. 35). More information can be found at

The real issue in criminal subject jurisdiction is whether the charges should be pursued by federal or state law. In the event that the charges affirm an infringement of federal Criminal Law, the respondent will be attempted in a federal court that is situated in the state in which the offense was perpetrated. In the event that the charges affirm an infringement of state law, the respondent will confront arraignment in a trial court that has jurisdiction over the territory in which the offense was conferred. On the off chance that a wrongdoing abuses both federal and state law, the respondent may be attempted twice: once in state court, and once in federal court.

In the typical state court system has several levels on complexity. The trials that take place in this setting are typically limited jurisdiction. This court system is the state’s highest court system. All court-associated cases within the state are leveled into the state court system. All state courts have varying jurisdiction. In these minimal crime cases, the judge, rarely a jury, does the ruling on these trials. Preliminary beginnings, such as arraignments, bail hearings, and preliminary hearings, happen in state courts as well. There are problem-solving courts that help to resolve the case before it is taken to trial. Some examples of these courts would be, drugs, guns, juvenile, domestic, and mental health courts. The states highest

Jurisdiction, is concern with the authority of a court to hear and decide legal disputes and to enforce its ruling. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court Jurisdiction is divided into original and appellate jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction is the power of a court to try and decide upon it. On the contrary, appellate jurisdiction is the legal authority granted by a superior court to review and render upon the decision. Also, the case must be appropriate for the Supreme Court to consider it justiciable. There are five main components that relates to justiciability. First of all, advisory opinion is an opinion issued by a court that provides the details on how it would rule on a question of law. The second component of justiciability is collusive suits. Collusive suits states that the court will not decide cases in which the litigants want the same outcome, evince no real adversity between them, or are merely testing the law. Moreover, mootness is when the Courts do not decide cases in which the controversy is no longer alive. The DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974) case provides a perfect example of mootness. Ripeness consist of a nonjusticiable if the controversy is premature for review. A good illustration of ripeness is demonstrated in International Longshoremen’s Union v. Boyd (1954). Finally, political questions is mainly concern with the Court realizes that there a specific questions that the will not address, because they are better solved by other branches of government. Moreover,

According to the ICJ statute jurisdiction of the court can only come into play once consent has been established. this essay will thus discuss the different ways in which the court jurisdiction comes into play and whether in light of this we can deduce the existence of an ICJ compulsory jurisdiction.