Jurisdiction in Legal Terms

An action brought by a plaintiff against a defendant based on a claim that the defendant failed to comply with a legal obligation that caused harm to the plaintiff. To solve the problem of finding the most favourable jurisdiction, countries are urged to adopt more positive conflict-of-law rules. The Hague Conference and other international bodies have made recommendations on jurisdictional issues, but litigants, encouraged by lawyers to obtain performance fees, continue to seek forums. The U.S. Supreme Court has the highest authority when legal issues need to be settled. However, it has very limited jurisdiction. The right as set out in previous court decisions. Synonymous with precedent. Similar to the common law, which stems from tradition and judicial decisions. Imprisonment for two or more offences to be served simultaneously and not consecutively. Example: Two five-year prison sentences and a three-year term if served at the same time result in a maximum of five years behind bars. The Minnesota Supreme Court raised the issue of Internet jurisdiction in a defamation action in Griffis v. Luban, 646 N.W.2d 527 (Min.

2002). Katherine Griffis, an Alabama resident, filed a defamation lawsuit against Marianne Luban, a Minnesota resident, in Alabama state court. Griffis won a default judgment of $25,000 for statements made by Luban on the Internet. Luban decided not to appear at the Alabama trial, and Griffis filed his sentence in Minnesota County, where Luban lived. Luban then filed a lawsuit against the judgment for lack of personal competence. The Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that the central issue of jurisdiction was whether Luban had targeted the state of Alabama when she made her defamatory statements. The court noted that while Luban knew Griffis lived in Alabama, his testimony was not « specifically directed to the state of Alabama. » Instead, she had posted these statements in a specialized Internet newsgroup that had only Griffis as an Alabama member. The court said, « The fact that the news published in the focus group could have been read in Alabama as it could have been read anywhere in the world cannot be sufficient to establish Alabama as the focal point of the defendant`s conduct. » As a result, Griffis had not established personal jurisdiction over Luban, Alabama, and the Minnesota state courts were not required to enforce the Alabama judgment. In some cases, however, you have no choice as to which jurisdiction applies. This is particularly the case in federal law, as discussed below. Parties often sue a defendant domiciled in another State.

In order for a state court to hear this case, that court must generally meet the constitutional requirements of due process of territorial jurisdiction (see above) as well as the state`s legal requirement, generally known as a state`s long-armed law. In criminal law, the constitutional guarantee that an accused receives a fair and impartial trial. In civil law, the legal rights of a person who is confronted with an adverse act that threatens liberty or property. State courts have concurrent jurisdiction in most cases. Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a limited number of cases, such as federal criminal law, antitrust, bankruptcy, patents, copyright, and certain admiralty cases, as well as lawsuits against the U.S. government. With respect to civil actions in « equity » and not in « law ». In English legal history, courts of « law » could order the payment of damages and could offer no other remedy (see damages).

A separate « fairness » tribunal could order someone to do something or stop something (e.g., injunction). In U.S. jurisprudence, federal courts have both legal and just power, but the distinction is always important. For example, a jury trial is generally available in « legal cases, » but not in « fairness » cases. The term competence can be better understood when compared to « power ». Each court has jurisdiction over matters only to the extent granted to it by the Constitution and/or the sovereignty legislation on whose behalf it is acting (for example, a Mississippi state court may require legal authorization from the Mississippi legislature to hear certain types of cases). Whether a particular court has jurisdiction to rule on a question of jurisdiction is itself a question of jurisdiction. Such a question of law is called « jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction. » The main issue in substantive criminal jurisdiction is whether charges are brought under federal or state law. If the charge alleges a violation of federal criminal law, the defendant is brought before a federal court located in the state where the offense was committed. If the prosecution alleges a violation of state law, the defendant will be prosecuted before a court of first instance having jurisdiction in the territory where the crime was committed. If a crime violates both federal and state law, the defendant can be tried twice: once in state court and once in federal court. In international law, various principles are recognized to establish the capacity of a State to exercise criminal jurisdiction over a person.