[Slide 26 displays the text] Jurisdiction and Other Limits on Judicial Authority [Narrator] Now in this part of module one, we ll be talking a little bit about the concept of jurisdiction, and also other limits on judicial authority. Jurisdiction is the limit of power of court to hear a case. Even if a judge personally has some sort of interest in a case finds it intellectually stimulating, thinks it s really important, feels really bad for the parties he or she can t just hear that case because they want to. They can t, out of the goodness of their heart, say, Yes, I will make a decision for you. Come to my court, please. No, they have to be given jurisdiction over that type of case. And how courts are given jurisdiction is through the legislator. Remember that the legislator both either at the state or federal level determines exactly what case is heard by what court. It grants power to the court to hear different types of cases. In addition to the concept of jurisdiction, there are other limits on judicial authority as well that are important to keep in mind both because they re basic to the concepts of law that we ll be learning in this course, and as you read court cases later on in this class, you re going to see these concepts referenced, and it s important for you not to be confused by exactly what the court is determining at that time. [Slide 27 displays the text] Jurisdiction: Which Court??? Power / authority of court to decide a case First Questions Plaintiff Asks in Case: What court hears this kind of case (subject matter jurisdiction)? What courts have power over the defendant (personal jurisdiction)? Courts have duty to review sua sponte [Slide 27 displays an illustration of a court house]
[Narrator] So when we re looking at issues of jurisdiction, really what we re asking ourselves is, Which court can hear this? Now we ve already gone over, earlier in the module, that there are federal systems of courts, and the whole raft of those, and there are state systems of courts, and the whole raft of those. So when we re asking ourselves, Okay, what is the jurisdiction? Who has jurisdiction over this case, we re asking, OK, which of those courts? Once we figure out where the starting point is, we can go to our previous lectures in this module and say, OK, I know exactly how it will follow through the appeals. But it s that beginning point that is often the most difficult to answer. Now, jurisdiction is the power or authority of a court to decide a case. Again, a judge can t just out of the goodness of their heart open up their courthouse and say, Come on in, I ll decide your case. They have to be granted that authority. So the first questions a plaintiff has to ask a plaintiff s a person who brings a case to court. A plaintiff says, I have got a beef. I want to bring a case. Well, you ve got to ask a couple of things first. What court hears this kind of case? That s a question of subject matter jurisdiction. So if a plaintiff is coming with a dog bite case in the state of Kentucky, and he has about $800 worth of medical bills, he s gonna wind himself up in District Court. District Court has civil jurisdiction over cases that involve less than $4,000. So you re gonna start out there. Versus, if someone has a case that involves the violation of federal aviation law, and involves tortios claims of, you know, $400,000 well, we re no longer gonna be in state court. We re gonna be over in the federal system. We re gonna start in Federal District Court. We had a similar case that involved tax law, well, we d start in federal tax court. And so on and so forth. So, it s important to figure out exactly what case hears this type of subject matter jurisdiction, this kind of case. Now, the next thing a plaintiff has to ask is, OK, what courts have power over the defendant? That bad guy, or so the plaintiff says. The defendant is the person who the person will file the case against, and the defendant must defend that case. So when the plaintiff figures out, OK, what kind of court hears this case, the next thing he has to say is, Where does the court have jurisdiction or power over the defendant? Where do they have personal jurisdiction over that defendant? Where can I make that defendant show up in court? Now, if it s a dog bite case and
it happened in Madison County Kentucky, and it involves $800 worth of medical bills and the defendant and the plaintiff both live in Madison County, this is a very easy question to answer. We re going to go to Madison County s District Court and hear this case. Now, if the plaintiff is from Madison County and the defendant is from Fayette County, and the dog bite happened in Fayette County, we may very well be in District Court in Fayette County, not in Madison County. Just because the plaintiff is from Madison County doesn t mean that the defendant has to haul himself over the river and show up for Madison County District Court. The dog bite took place in Fayette County; he might have to go to Fayette County. Now, I m going to be very blunt. Jurisdiction is a very complicated concept. If any of you ever attend law school someday, you will have an entire course that is dedicated solely to jurisdiction. So if you find yourself at the end of this lecture unable to place every case and understand ever jurisdictional issue, that is fine. In fact, it s good that you figure out exactly what you do and don t know. I think at that point you ve really mastered the material at the level we need for this class. What I want you to get from this lecture is not the ability to determine jurisdiction of every single possible defendant and every single possible plaintiff, but to understand that there are concepts which are related to court powers, and determine what courts hear what cases. Concepts of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction can often be quite complicated. But if you have a basic, fundamental understanding of them, you re doing pretty well. The other thing that I want you to understand is that courts have a duty to review jurisdictional questions. In fact, when we get later into the course and talk about how we pursue litigation, you ll note that parties often have to explain the jurisdiction to the court, and then the court must review it. They have a duty to review it sua sponte, even. Even if everybody in the case says, Sure, we belong in Madison County Court, the court on their own must say, Hm, I don t know. Maybe you don t. Sua sponte means that the courts will review it even if the parties don t bring it up. And they have a duty to review it even if the parties don t bring it up. Because even though all the parties might want to get together in Lexington I don t know, maybe they re planning to go out to eat afterwards they maybe should not be in Fayette County Court. Maybe they should be in Madison County Court.
I mean, imagine if you had a dog bite take place in New York, and the plaintiff and the defendant are all in agreement, Yeah, let s just go to New York and hear this case because we like New York at Christmas time. Well, even if the New York courts find the people somehow nice and want to let them in their doors, the court does not have the right, it does not have the power a New York court does not have the power to hear a tort law case involving a Kentucky dog bite. It hasn t been given that power. That court was created by New York legislator to determine New York state law, not to make decisions for the state of Kentucky, even if all the parties are in agreement and the courts kind of think it might be fun. Then that New York State Court would have the duty to review the jurisdiction sua sponte and say, I m sorry, lovely people from Kentucky that want your case decided in my court. I would love to have you, but I have neither subject matter nor personal jurisdiction over you. I ll have to send you home after the holidays. [Slide 28 displays the text] State Subject Matter Jurisdiction Most states have a court of general jurisdiction (KY Circuit Court) Some states forms courts for specific cases (housing court, juvenile court, probate court) Determined by state statute and/or state constitution [Slide 28 displays illustrations of a man at trial, a family, and a signed lease] [Narrator] Now let s talk a little bit about what we mean by state court subject matter jurisdiction. Most states have a court of general jurisdiction. In Kentucky, that would be that Kentucky Circuit Court. Now, general jurisdiction means that they kind get those kitchen sink cases. Most everything, if we can t figure out some other court to put it in, is going to go to Kentucky Circuit Court. It s gonna have a general jurisdiction, meaning most things will go there unless there are other places for it to go. Most states also have forms of courts for specific cases. For instance in the state of Kentucky there s Family Law Court, there s Probate Court, there s all sorts of specific subject matter jurisdiction courts that we have as well. Similar to the federal
system, in which there is tax court, there are military courts. Well, similar to that in states, there can be specific courts that hear specific subject matter. So they have specific subject matter. If you wanted to go to Family Court and have an issue raised about a dog bite, though, that poor family court judge is going to have to tell you, No matter how much I d like to help you out, nope, I m sorry, I don t have jurisdiction over that. And they re going to have to send you to another court that has jurisdiction over that issue. As far as what subject matter is covered by what court, that s determined by state statute, or state constitution. [Slide 29 displays the text] Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction CANNOT BE WAIVED!!! Non-Article III Courts have specific jurisdiction over a type of case (bankruptcy, tax, international trade) District Courts exercise original jurisdiction that have limited subject matter Federal Question Jurisdiction (copyright, admiralty) Diversity of Citizenship: All parties from different states or countries (based on domicile) Amount in controversy over $75,000 [Slide 29 displays illustrations of tax papers, the letter C, and a map of the U.S.] [Narrator] Now we talked earlier in this module about how for the most part in the United States, our system is set up so that most things are dealt with at a state level, and only specific things are dealt with at a federal level. We have a limited federal system. I mean yes, we do have control of the country as a whole at the federal level. But for the most part, things are dealt with locally both in our legal system and in our legislative system. Well, keep that in mind as we start our study of federal subject matter jurisdiction. And first of all, I want you to know that subject
matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. That means no matter how badly the parties want to be in federal court, if they re not supposed to be, it cannot be waived. So they re gonna kick them out of federal court. And it doesn t matter how late in the case it is. It could be that the U.S. Supreme Court figures out there is no longer jurisdiction in that case subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. They just throw them back over to some state court and start all over again. Good luck guys. Again, also why courts are encouraged to sua sponte review jurisdiction very early on in cases. So let s talk a little about how one winds up in federal court. Well, there can certain, what are sometimes referred to off the cuff as Non-Article Three courts, meaning federal courts that have very specific jurisdiction over a type of case. Now mind you, these courts also are derived from Article Three because remember, Article Three only sets up a Supreme Court. However, the phrase you will sometimes hear for these courts are non-article Three courts, meaning they re not within the classic general federal jurisdiction line. These will be courts that have specific jurisdiction over things like bankruptcy. You want to file for bankruptcy, whether as an individual or a corporation, you ll do that through a bankruptcy court. Tax Courts and International Trade Courts are all examples of these non-article Three courts. They re not going to hear anything out of federal subject jurisdiction, only certain topics. Now, District Courts, Federal District Courts, are the ones that exercise original jurisdiction in the federal system, meaning that they are sort of the courts of general jurisdiction. However, they have a very limited subject matter which they can cover. You have to fight yourself, fight your way into Federal Court. You cannot assume that you re going to wind up in Federal Court. If you re working off that assumption, you re soon going to find yourself over in State Court. So Federal District Courts have very limited subject matter jurisdiction they can cover. The two types of cases that Federal District Courts can hear are either those that involve a federal question if the law that is an issue is a federal law, and no way is regulated at the state level, either by constitution and/or by statute, then you re gonna wind yourself over in Federal District Court. Such things as copyright law. There s no such thing as state copyrights. It s decided in the Constitution, it s decided at the federal statute level. If you re involved in copyright, you re
going to be over in federal law, and therefore it s a federal question, which a Federal District Court can hear. Admiralty. Again, the state of Kentucky can t decide what the law of the highs seas will be. It s determined at the federal level, so we d be over in Federal District Court, because we have a federal question. Nothing else about the case matters. It simply is Federal Law, it must be decided by a Federal Court. The other way that you can wind up in Federal Court is if you have something known as Diversity of Citizenship. And this requires a couple things. First, all the parties involved in the case must be involved in different states our countries, based on their domicile, which basically means where they plan to live indefinitely, or at least for an amount of time that is undetermined. So, all the parties have to be from different states. If you have two people from the same state, out of luck, back to state court. Bye bye. The other thing that you need is, the amount of controversy must be over $75,000. If you ve got a case that involves $50,000, sorry, you re back to state court, bye bye. Now, this amount has changed over time, and no doubt will change during your lifetime. But currently, if all parties are from different states, and the amount of controversy s over $75,000, you could get yourself in Federal Court. [Slide 30 displays the text] In Personam Jurisdiction Tag Jurisdiction Party served summons and complaint within boundaries of state (Pennoyer v. Neff, upheld by Burnham v. Superior Court) Domicile Party can be sued in state of permanent residence (or state where corporation Consent/Waiver incorporated) regardless of where claims arise. (Milliken V. Meyer)
Defendant can agree to jurisdiction by showing up for a general appearance or, in some states, by contract. Sufficient Minimum Contacts If the party purposefully avails themselves of a rights of a jurisdiction, then can be brought to court there. (International Shoe v. Washington) Long-Arm Statutes Base jurisdiction over nonresidents upon a variety of contacts with the forum. [Narrator] Now in addition to subject matter jurisdiction, a court must also have in personam jurisdiction over the defendant. So, not every Bankruptcy Court can hear every bankruptcy case. They have to figure out whether they re supposed to be in New York Bankruptcy Court, or Kentucky Bankruptcy Court. It has to do not just with the subject matter involved, but also where we can call the defendant to come to court. Keep in mind again, this is to limit the power of the courts. Imagine if you were involved in a case where an accident took place in Lexington Kentucky, and all of a sudden you received a summons from a court to show up for trial in Chicago, Illinois. Just because the plaintiff that you happened to be involved with in this accident has since moved to Chicago, how are you in any way, shape, or form, involved with Chicago? It wouldn t be fair. There s no way that we should let a court force individuals to leave the jurisdiction in which they reside, the jurisdiction in which they are able to elect judges the jurisdiction where they are able to both benefit and suffer the consequences of local law. So, the concept of in personam jurisdiction, we are trying to figure out, OK, where can we make the defendant show up to hear this case? Now there are several ways that you can go about in personam jurisdiction. And once again I warn you, at the end of this lecture, you re not going to master all concepts of in personam jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction, which is a slightly easier concept. But I want to give you some ideas about how we go about determining in personam jurisdiction, and establishing where exactly we can force a defendant to come and show up for court.
One of them the funnest ways, I think, to determine in personam jurisdiction is what s known as tag jurisdiction. Tag jurisdiction is just what it sounds like. You show up and you tag the person. If a party is served with a summons and complaint within the boundaries of a state, they can be forced to show up to that court, and hear their case there. Now, I once had a really funny situation in which I was involved with tag jurisdiction. This is kind of wild, wild, West stuff when you think about it. It s not really classic pure jurisdiction anymore, but there was one case one time when we were trying to serve the defendant. We really wanted to have the case heard in New York, for a variety of reasons. We had a client that wanted to stay in New York to have their case heard. And we knew that the defendant was actually going to be showing up to a charity dinner in New York City later in the month. So we actually had an individual dress up and attend the charity dinner, and serve the party with the summons and complaint at this lovely Waldorf Astoria event. And apparently the CEO of this corporation took it pretty well. Which I must admit, I m not sure I would have. Now, tag jurisdiction, I ll be honest it quite rare. A more common way in which to determine or establish in personam jurisdiction is a determination of the parties domicile. A party can be sued in the state of its permanent residence. A permanent residence, for the most part, means wherever you re living, and you don t have plans to leave at a specific date. For instance, if you re a college student and you re living in the state of Kentucky, but you re actually from Ohio, and the second you plan to graduate from Kentucky and go back to Ohio, your domicile stays in Ohio, even during the time in which you live in Kentucky, attending school. The same, often, for people who have temporary corporate locations. If your corporations told you, OK, you re stationed out of Illinois, but for the next two years you need to go work on this project in Texas. During your two years in Texas, if you demonstrate that you always planned to return to Illinois, you are actually a domiciliary of the state of Illinois, not of Texas. Now, for corporations, this typically is where the corporation is incorporated. We ll talk a little bit more in depth about corporate in personam jurisdiction later on. Now remind you, domicile is completely separate from wherever the claims arise. Someone can be domiciled in Texas, take a vacation in California, and cause an accident. And that s completely different. They would still be a domiciliary of Texas, and you could sue them in Texas, even if the accident occurred in
California. There may be other reasons why you wouldn t want to hear it in Texas in Texas Court, might want to say, No, no, no, and go over to California. But again, some of those are way beyond the scope of this lecture today. Another way one can establish in personam jurisdiction is by consenter waiver, meaning that all the defendants and all the plaintiffs in the case agree to show up to some jurisdiction. In some cases, this can be done by contract. For instance, in the state of New York, you can actually contract to hear your cases in the state of New York using New York state law. That s something that they ve simply provided, their state legislators provided, because they believe that many corporations need a set of robust contract laws. New York believes they have one, and therefore they grant individuals, corporations the right to contract saying, No matter what happens, we re gonna show up in New York to fight about this. And if all parties agree and sign, they can do so. Also, you can waive in personam jurisdiction. The defendant can say, You know what, I know I technically should be a domiciliary of Texas, but this case occurred in California, I think it just makes sense for us, I m in California for the next six months anyways, let s just hear it in California. A defendant can actually waive their rights, consent to be heard somewhere else. And in personam jurisdiction really, again, is a right by a defendant to not show up to a court they never wanted to be in. The plaintiff gets to file where they want, but then where can we force the defendant to show up? That s really the issue here. So if a defendant waives in personam jurisdiction, hey, OK. Now mind you, you cannot waive subject matter jurisdiction. If a court sees that happening if you want a dog bite case heard in Bankruptcy Court no, no, no. You re going to be kicked out. I don t care if you all agreed to it. Another way one can establish in personam jurisdiction is through a concept known as sufficient minimum contacts. This means that a party purposely avails themselves to the rights of a jurisdiction, they can be brought to court there. In other words, if a corporation decides to set up shop and use employment laws in the state of Missouri, use Missouri State Criminal Law to protect themselves from burglaries, use Missouri State Contract Law to set stuff up. Well, even if that corporation is incorporated in Delaware, and its main point of business is in Chicago. If they purposely availed themselves the rights and laws of the state of Missouri they ve purposely
availed themselves there they ve established sufficient minimum contacts there, and can be sued there. They can be forced to show up back in Missouri, where they ve enjoyed all those rights of Missouri State Law, and have to stand before a court there. Another concept that you ll occasionally see is the concept of the long armed statute. Most states have long arm statutes, which allow them to have jurisdiction over non-residents. OK, fine. You don t really live in California, but you showed up in California, so we re going to figure out a way by legislator to establish jurisdiction over you. This is the way states can get non-residents to show back up in court to answer for whatever they did while they were in that court. Now mind you, there are some limits to long armed statutes. Again, most of those limits, though, would be well beyond the scope of this course. But the idea that a state legislator can just grant a court jurisdiction over non-residents, based upon the long arm statute, is a concept of in personam jurisdiction I want you to know is available. [Slide 31 displays the text] Jurisdiction in Special Cases Corporate Jurisdiction State of Incorporation (domicile) Registered to do Business (domicile) Don t forget Sufficient Minimum Contacts!!! Jurisdiction Over Property (In Rem) Property located in state (land, bank accounts) Unrelated to personal jurisdiction of parties [Slide 31 displays illustrations of a house and of a skyscraper] [Narrator] Now let s talk about a couple special instances of jurisdiction. Let s deal with the concept of the corporation. OK. Corporations are people too well, not really well, in the eyes,
maybe, sort of. Let me walk you through what I mean here, OK? Corporations often are incorporated in a single state, but then they register to do business in several other states. In fact, corporations could be registered outside of the country. They re really based outside of the country, but then they have to be incorporated within the U.S., and registered to do business within the U.S. Well, how do you sue a corporation? Where do you get them to show up to court? Well, in the case of a corporation, anywhere that a corporation is incorporated and for the vast majority of U.S. corporations that really is the state of Delaware for reasons well beyond the scope of this lecture. But for many major corporations that operate worldwide, or at least nationwide, they re incorporated in Delaware. If they re incorporated in a state, that is considered the domicile of that corporation. Same way wherever you and I live is considered our domicile. We re not planning to leave any time soon. Also, if a company registers to do business in a state you might be incorporated in the state of Delaware, but you want to open up a factory and sell your goods here in the state of Kentucky, well you better register with the Attorney Generals office in the state of Kentucky, or register to do business here. And therefore, you re also considered to be domiciled, in the way as a corporation would be domiciled, and I can get you to show up to Kentucky State Court to hear my complaint. And also, don t forget sufficient minimum contacts. Even if a corporation is not incorporated in the state, or not registered to do business in the state, if they have enjoyed the benefits of the legal system of a state, we can force that corporation to show up there as well. Now another special concept within jurisdiction is jurisdiction over property, or in rem jurisdiction. In rem jurisdiction is jurisdiction over specific kinds of property. For instance when a property is located in the state now, that property could be 10 acres of land, and that property could be $10,000 in a bank account held in a certain state that state, where the property s actually located has jurisdiction over that case. Also, any sort of unrelated personal jurisdiction of the parties can also force a case into a particular state. Again, specific applications of corporate and in rem jurisdiction are well beyond the scope of the course, but you should understand basics. If land is located someplace, most likely everyone is going to have show up to
where that land is located to hear that case. If the state is incorporated or registered to do business in the state, most likely that corporation s going to have to show up to that specific state. There are certainly exceptions to that, but those are well beyond the scope of this lecture. [Slide 32 displays the text] Venue State Place where case should take place (specific county) Federal Can be waived if not challenged promptly Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens District where all defendants reside Where property is located In Diversity Cases: Where Defendant subject to personal jurisdiction at time of filing In Federal Question Cases: Where any defendant can be found Where corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction [Narrator] Now in addition to the concept of jurisdiction, I also want you to be familiar with the concept of venue. Venue doesn t deal with the courts power to hear a case, but more with sort of the physical geography of the court, and also the convenience of the parties. Where should we really show up? So, in a state, for instance, the place where a case should take place, the venue of the case would be, perhaps, a specific county. We know Kentucky State District Court has
jurisdiction over the case, we know all the parties should probably show up to a certain, you know, into Madison County, but are they gonna what exactly, what court will they show up to? Now, venue can be waived, if not challenged promptly. If you start out and you re willing to be heard in a slightly inconvenient forum or venue well, you ve lost your rights. In fact, doctrine of forum non conveniens talks about the idea that venues should be convenient. Where are the witnesses? Where is the defendant? Where is the plaintiff? Where are the experts to the case? Where they re all located may be the most logical end place to put the case, even if perhaps an accident or a contract occurred outside of that specific county in the area. For federal courts, typically venue is determined where all the defendants reside. They all reside together, you re going to that district. Or where property is located, if that property be 10 acres or $10,000. Now in diversity cases, it s any venue where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time of filing as an appropriate venue for that case. OK, so if you re in those cases involving diversity of citizenship, where any defendant could be subject to personal jurisdictions also an appropriate venue. Now in federal question cases, it s where any defendant can be found. They don t necessarily have to be subject to personal jurisdiction there, but if you can get them to show up and find them, that may be an appropriate venue for that case. Furthermore, any place where a corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction which we talked about previously being either where they re incorporated or where they re registered to do business any of those locations would be an appropriate venue in the federal system for a corporation. [Slide 33 displays the text] Removal Jurisdiction Defendant sued in state court has the right to have case removed to federal court. Except when Defendant is a citizen of state where lawsuit filed To prevent possible prejudice toward out-of-state defendants
[Slide 33 displays an illustration of a moving truck] [Narrator] Now one other concept about jurisdiction that you should be familiar with is the concept of removal jurisdiction. If a defendant has sued in State Court, that defendant has the right to have that case removed to Federal Court if and only if the Federal Court has jurisdiction over the case. So let s say you re a plaintiff in a diversity of citizenship case, and you think, Hm, I can either sue in State Court, or I can sue in Federal Court. But I ve decided to sue in State Court. Maybe I like the laws better there. Maybe I like the judges better there. Maybe I like my chances of getting a really sweet jury that will decide exactly the way I want them to decide. I am the plaintiff. I file in state court. Mr. Defendant shows up and goes, Oh, this is not a good idea. I don t want to hear this is State Court. I want to be in Federal Court. I like my chances before a federal judge, who I might think is a little less biased towards an out-of-state defendant. Or I might like my chances using federal law, having that be applied rather than state law. Who knows what my rights are, but if I am a defendant, and there s federal subject matter jurisdiction over me, I can ask that my case be removed from State Court to Federal Court. That is the right of a defendant. Except when the defendant is a citizen of the state where the lawsuit is filed. If everybody s there, then well, alas, we re going to have to stay in State Court. Also, there wouldn t be jurisdiction over that individual in our federal system. And this really is to prevent possible prejudice towards out-of-state defendants. If you really think that you re going to be in Kentucky State Court, and you, a West Virginia Corporation, are just not going to get a fair shake cause you know those Kentuckians well, you should have the right to remove yourself from a state system which you may not actually enjoy the benefits of, and be allowed to be heard in a Federal Court System. [Slide 34 displays the text] Requirements in Addition to Jurisdiction Case & Controversy Courts do not have power to decide questions that do not affect the litigants before them
Justiciable Derived from Article III Standing Is this the right person to bring the case? Plaintiff must have legally sufficient personal interest. Ripeness Is this the right time to bring the case? The case facts must develop sufficiently for case to be decided. Mootness Is there still a problem? Plaintiff must have legally sufficient basis to bring suit throughout the entire proceedings. [Slide 34 displays an illustration of a gavel] [Powerpoint ends]