5. Jurisdiction, types of jurisdiction, issue of jurisdiction as
preliminary issue, objections to jurisdiction, Bar to jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the power of a
court to hear and decide a case. It is a fundamental principle of law that a
court can only hear and decide cases that fall within its jurisdiction.
5.1 Types of Jurisdictions
·
Subject matter jurisdiction: This is the power of a court to hear cases of a particular
type. For example, a court may have subject matter jurisdiction over cases
involving contracts, torts, or family law.
·
Territorial jurisdiction: This is the power of a court to hear cases that arise in
a particular area. For example, a court may have territorial jurisdiction over
cases that are filed in the county where the court is located.
·
Personal jurisdiction: This is the power of a court to hear cases against a
particular person. For example, a court may have personal jurisdiction over a
person who lives in the county where the court is located.
·
Original jurisdiction: This is the
power of a court to hear a case for the first time. It is distinguished from
appellate jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to review the decision of
a lower court.
·
Appellate jurisdiction: This is the
power of a court to review the decision of a lower court. The appellate court
can affirm the decision of the lower court, reverse the decision of the lower
court, or remand the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
·
Concurrent jurisdiction: This is
when two or more courts have the power to hear the same case. For example, a
state court and a federal court may both have concurrent jurisdiction over a
case involving a contract dispute.
·
Exclusive jurisdiction: This is when
only one court has the power to hear a particular case. For example, a
bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving bankruptcy.
·
In rem jurisdiction: This is the
power of a court to hear cases involving property. For example, a court may
have in rem jurisdiction over a case involving a car that is located in the
county where the court is located.
·
Quasi in rem jurisdiction: This is a
type of jurisdiction that is similar to in rem jurisdiction, but it is used in
cases where the property is not the main focus of the case. For example, a
court may have quasi in rem jurisdiction over a case involving a person who
owes money to a creditor, even if the property of the person is not located in
the county where the court is located.
The specific type of jurisdiction that a court has will depend on the
law of the jurisdiction and the facts of the case.
5.1.1 Subject matter jurisdiction
Subject matter jurisdiction is
the power of a court to hear cases of a particular type. It is determined by
the law of the jurisdiction in which the court is located.
The subject matter jurisdiction of a court is usually
defined by statute. For example, a statute may state that a particular court
has jurisdiction over cases involving contracts, torts, or family law.
The subject matter jurisdiction
of a court can also be determined by the constitution of the jurisdiction. For
example, the constitution of a country may state that the federal courts have
jurisdiction over cases involving federal law.
If a court does not have subject
matter jurisdiction over a case, it cannot hear the case. The court will
dismiss the case, or it may transfer the case to a court that does have
jurisdiction.
Here are some examples of subject matter jurisdiction:
·
A court of general jurisdiction has jurisdiction
over a wide range of cases, including contract disputes, tort claims, and
family law matters.
·
A specialized court, such as a bankruptcy court
or a probate court, has jurisdiction over a narrower range of cases.
·
A federal court has jurisdiction over cases
involving federal law, such as cases involving copyright infringement or
antitrust violations.
The subject matter jurisdiction of
a court is an important concept because it ensures that cases are heard by
courts that are competent to decide them. It also helps to prevent cases from
being heard by courts that are not equipped to handle them.
5.1.2 Territorial jurisdiction
Territorial jurisdiction is the
power of a court to hear cases that arise in a particular area. It is
determined by the law of the jurisdiction in which the court is located.
The territorial jurisdiction of a
court is usually defined by statute. For example, a statute may state that a
particular court has jurisdiction over cases that are filed in the county where
the court is located.
The territorial jurisdiction of a
court can also be determined by the constitution of the jurisdiction. For example,
the constitution of a country may state that the federal courts have
jurisdiction over cases that are filed in the federal district where the court
is located.
If a court does not have
territorial jurisdiction over a case, it cannot hear the case. The court will
dismiss the case, or it may transfer the case to a court that does have
jurisdiction.
Here are some examples of territorial jurisdiction:
·
A state court has jurisdiction over cases that
are filed in the state where the court is located.
·
A federal court has jurisdiction over cases that
are filed in the federal district where the court is located.
·
A county court has jurisdiction over cases that
are filed in the county where the court is located.
The territorial jurisdiction of a
court is an important concept because it ensures that cases are heard by courts
that are located near the parties and the witnesses. It also helps to prevent
cases from being heard by courts that are not familiar with the local laws and
customs.
Here are some of the factors that can be considered when
determining territorial jurisdiction:
·
The place where the cause of action arose.
·
The place where the defendant resides or is
domiciled.
·
The place where the defendant's property is
located.
·
The place where the contract was made.
·
The place where the tort was committed.
The specific factors that are
considered will vary depending on the type of case and the law of the
jurisdiction.
5.1.3 Personal Jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction is the
power of a court to hear cases against a particular person. It is determined by
the law of the jurisdiction in which the court is located.
Personal jurisdiction can be based on a number of factors,
including:
·
Physical presence: A court has personal jurisdiction over a person who is
physically present in the jurisdiction when the lawsuit is filed.
·
Domicile: A court has personal jurisdiction over a person who is
domiciled in the jurisdiction. Domicile is a legal concept that means that a
person has their permanent home in a particular place.
·
Consent: A person can consent to personal jurisdiction by doing
something that indicates that they are willing to be sued in a particular
court, such as by signing a contract that contains a forum selection clause.
·
Minimum contacts: A court may have personal jurisdiction over a person who
does not have physical presence or domicile in the jurisdiction if the person
has sufficient "minimum contacts" with the jurisdiction. Minimum
contacts means that the person has had some significant interaction with the
jurisdiction, such as doing business in the jurisdiction or causing harm to
someone in the jurisdiction.
If a court does not have personal
jurisdiction over a defendant, the court cannot hear the case against the
defendant. The court will dismiss the case, or it may transfer the case to a
court that does have jurisdiction.
Personal jurisdiction is an
important concept because it ensures that people are not sued in courts where
they have no connection. It also helps to prevent people from being sued in
multiple courts for the same matter.
Here are some of the factors that
are considered when determining personal jurisdiction:
·
The length of time the defendant was present in
the jurisdiction.
·
The number of contacts the defendant had with
the jurisdiction.
·
The nature of the contacts the defendant had
with the jurisdiction.
·
The purpose of the contacts the defendant had
with the jurisdiction.
·
The fairness of exercising personal jurisdiction
over the defendant.
5.1.4 Original jurisdiction
Original jurisdiction is the
power of a court to hear a case for the first time. This means that the court
is the first court to consider the case and make a decision.
Appellate jurisdiction is the
power of a court to review the decision of a lower court. This means that the
appellate court is not the first court to consider the case, but it can review
the decision of the lower court and make its own decision.
The distinction between original
jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction is important because it determines
which court has the power to hear a case. In some cases, only one court has
original jurisdiction over a particular type of case. For example, only the
federal courts have original jurisdiction over cases involving federal law.
In other cases, multiple courts
may have original jurisdiction over a particular type of case. For example,
both state courts and federal courts may have original jurisdiction over cases
involving contract disputes.
The specific rules regarding
original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction will vary depending on the
jurisdiction.
Here are some examples of original jurisdiction:
·
A federal district court has original
jurisdiction over cases involving federal law.
·
A state supreme court has original jurisdiction
over cases involving the interpretation of the state constitution.
·
A county court has original jurisdiction over
cases involving traffic violations.
Here are some examples of appellate jurisdiction:
·
A state supreme court has appellate jurisdiction
over cases decided by lower state courts.
·
The United States Supreme Court has appellate
jurisdiction over cases decided by federal courts of appeals.
5.1.5 Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate jurisdiction is the
power of a court to review the decision of a lower court. This means that the
appellate court is not the first court to consider the case, but it can review
the decision of the lower court and make its own decision.
The appellate court can do one of
three things when it reviews a lower court decision:
·
Affirm: This means that the appellate court agrees with the
decision of the lower court and leaves it in place.
·
Reverse: This means that the appellate court disagrees with the
decision of the lower court and sets it aside.
·
Remanded: This means that the appellate court sends the case back
to the lower court for further proceedings.
The decision of the appellate
court is final and binding on the lower court. However, the parties to the case
can still appeal the decision of the appellate court to a higher court if they
have the right to do so.
Here are some of the factors that the appellate court will
consider when reviewing a lower court decision:
·
The correctness of the law applied by the lower
court.
·
The facts of the case as found by the lower
court.
·
The weight of the evidence presented to the
lower court.
·
The credibility of the witnesses who testified
in the lower court.
The appellate court will also
consider the arguments made by the parties to the case. The parties can file
briefs with the appellate court, setting out their arguments and why they
believe the lower court decision should be reversed or remanded.
The appellate court may hold oral
arguments in the case. This gives the parties an opportunity to present their
arguments to the judges of the appellate court.
After considering all of the
relevant factors, the appellate court will issue its decision. The decision
will be written and will explain the reasons for the court's decision.
5.1.6 Concurrent Jurisdiction
Concurrent jurisdiction means
that two or more courts have the power to hear the same case. This means that
the plaintiff can choose which court to file the case in.
Concurrent jurisdiction is
usually found in cases that involve both state and federal law. For example, a
case involving a contract dispute may involve both state contract law and
federal antitrust law. In this case, the plaintiff could file the case in
either state court or federal court.
The plaintiff's choice of court
may be influenced by a number of factors, such as the location of the court,
the judges who sit on the court, and the rules of procedure that apply in the
court.
Here are some of the factors that
the plaintiff may consider when choosing a court with concurrent jurisdiction:
·
The location of the court: The plaintiff may
want to file the case in a court that is located near where the events giving
rise to the case occurred.
·
The judges who sit on the court: The plaintiff
may want to file the case in a court that is known for its expertise in the
type of case that is being filed.
·
The rules of procedure that apply in the court:
The plaintiff may want to file the case in a court that has rules of procedure
that are favorable to the plaintiff's case.
The decision of which court to
file a case in is an important one. The plaintiff should carefully consider all
of the factors involved before making a decision.
5.1.7 Exclusive jurisdiction
Exclusive jurisdiction means that
only one court has the power to hear a particular case. This is different from
concurrent jurisdiction, where two or more courts have the power to hear the
same case.
Exclusive jurisdiction is usually
granted to courts that specialize in a particular area of law. For example,
bankruptcy courts have exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving bankruptcy.
This is because bankruptcy is a complex area of law that requires specialized
knowledge and expertise.
Exclusive jurisdiction can also
be granted to courts that are located in a particular place. For example, a
probate court may have exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the estates
of deceased persons who lived in a particular county.
The purpose of exclusive
jurisdiction is to ensure that cases are heard by courts that have the
necessary knowledge and expertise to decide them. It also helps to prevent
cases from being heard by multiple courts, which can lead to confusion and
delays.
Here are some examples of exclusive jurisdiction:
·
Bankruptcy courts have exclusive jurisdiction
over cases involving bankruptcy.
·
Probate courts have exclusive jurisdiction over
cases involving the estates of deceased persons.
·
Family courts have exclusive jurisdiction over
cases involving divorce, child custody, and adoption.
·
Tax courts have exclusive jurisdiction over
cases involving tax disputes.
Apart from this you may come across below;
5.18 In rem jurisdiction
In rem jurisdiction is a type of
jurisdiction that allows a court to hear a case against property itself. This
means that the court can make a ruling about the property, even if the owner of
the property is not present in the jurisdiction where the court is located.
For example, if a car is located
in a particular county, a court in that county may have in rem jurisdiction
over a case involving the car, even if the owner of the car does not live in
that county.
In rem jurisdiction is a limited
form of jurisdiction. It can only be used in cases where the property is
located in the jurisdiction where the court is located. The court must also
have a legitimate interest in exercising jurisdiction over the property.
The decision of whether to
exercise in rem jurisdiction is a discretionary one. The court will weigh the
factors involved and decide whether it is in the best interests of all parties
to exercise jurisdiction.
Here are some of the factors that
a court will consider when determining whether to exercise in rem jurisdiction:
·
The connection between the property and the
claim being asserted.
·
The convenience of the parties.
·
The fairness of the exercise of jurisdiction.
The decision of whether to
exercise in rem jurisdiction is a complex one. There is no easy answer and the
factors involved will vary from case to case.
5.1.9 Quasi in rem jurisdiction
Quasi in rem jurisdiction is a
type of jurisdiction that is similar to in rem jurisdiction, but it is used in
cases where the property is not the main focus of the case. In in rem
jurisdiction, the court has jurisdiction over the property itself. In quasi in
rem jurisdiction, the court has jurisdiction over the property, but the property
is not the main focus of the case.
For example, a court may have
quasi in rem jurisdiction over a case involving a person who owes money to a
creditor. In this case, the property that is being used to establish
jurisdiction is the money that the person owes to the creditor. The main focus
of the case, however, is not the money, but the debt that the person owes to
the creditor.
Quasi in rem jurisdiction is a
limited form of jurisdiction. It can only be used in cases where the property
is located in the jurisdiction where the court is located.
Here are some of the factors that
a court will consider when determining whether it has quasi in rem
jurisdiction:
·
The connection between the property and the
claim being asserted.
·
The convenience of the parties.
·
The fairness of the exercise of jurisdiction.
The decision of whether to
exercise quasi in rem jurisdiction is a discretionary one. The court will weigh
the factors involved and decide whether it is in the best interests of all
parties to exercise jurisdiction.
5.2 Issue of Jurisdiction as Preliminary issue
The issue of jurisdiction can be raised as a preliminary issue
in a case. This means that the court can decide the issue of jurisdiction
before it decides the merits of the case.
The court will usually decide the issue of jurisdiction at
the beginning of the case, but it can also decide the issue later in the case
if necessary.
5.3 Objections to jurisdiction
The parties to a case can raise objections to the
jurisdiction of the court. These objections can be based on a number of
grounds, such as:
- The court does not have subject matter jurisdiction
over the case.
- The court does not have territorial jurisdiction
over the case.
- The court does not have personal jurisdiction over
the defendant.
Bar to jurisdiction
There are also a number of bars to jurisdiction. These are
factors that prevent a court from exercising its jurisdiction over a case. Some
common bars to jurisdiction include:
- The statute of limitations has expired.
- The case is res judicata.
- The case is a matter of foreign sovereign immunity.
Conclusion
Jurisdiction is a complex and important concept. It is
important to understand the different types of jurisdiction and the ways in
which the issue of jurisdiction can be raised in a case.
No comments:
Post a Comment