Home Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

Personal Jurisdiction Revealed

Personal Jurisdiction Revealed

The concept of personal jurisdiction pertains to one of the ways in which judicial decision-making bodies can exercise authority over legal matters, as provides one of the essential cornerstones for American legal theory and practice. 
 
 
In this regard, personal jurisdiction is typically understood as one of the three main forms in which jurisdiction can come, with other categories being territorial jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction.
 
 
While the first of those other forms of jurisdiction refers to the power held by a court over a specific territory in political and geographic terms, and the second to certain kinds of legal issues which can arise as matters of concern, personal jurisdiction refers to the authority which can be permissibly exercised by a judge over an individual or object. 
 
 
Personal jurisdiction as it is exercised in the United States will typically come in of two possible forms: in personam jurisdiction, which pertains to the power of the court over a person before it as a defendant, or, as an alternative, in rem personal jurisdiction, which pertains to some physical object which can be in a person’s possession.
 
 
While the lack of personal jurisdiction, in either of these two possible forms, can disqualify a court from making matters in regard to a person or thing in such an instance, defendants do have the option of signing a waiver allowing the oversight of a court which would otherwise be barred for lacking personal jurisdiction. 

Uncover the Definition of Concurrent Jurisdiction

Uncover the Definition of Concurrent Jurisdiction

The concept of concurrent jurisdiction refers to a situation which can be found to occur in the functioning of the U.S. judicial system, in which more than one court possesses the right to exercise jurisdiction over a particular legal matter. 
 
 
The existence of concurrent jurisdiction can lead to the occurrence of forum shopping. In this way, defendants and plaintiffs involved in ongoing legal actions have been observed to attempt to secure more desirable results for themselves from a legal action by bringing a suit in a more amenable judicial setting. 
 
 
Concurrent jurisdiction can occur in a number of different specific, potential forms. To this end, concurrent jurisdiction could be found to exist between two courts: one at the Federal level and the other at the State level. 
 
 
Alternately, concurrent jurisdiction could also be enjoyed by a higher and lower court of the same State. Moreover, concurrent jurisdiction might even exist between any kind of U.S. court and another governmental entity which is not a court at all but nonetheless possesses some kind of judicial power. 
 
 
The place of concurrent jurisdiction in American legal theory and practice is set down by the provisions made for such a situation in the United States Code, Title 28, Sections 1331 and 1332. Specifically, this legally codified language provides for the ability of the courts at the Federal level to exercise concurrent jurisdiction along with the states. Concurrent jurisdiction can also occur between legal systems of different countries. 

Easy Definition of Exclusive Jurisdiction

Easy Definition of Exclusive Jurisdiction

Exclusive jurisdiction is a concept which can be observed in the civil law and surrounding rules of procedure in the legal system of the United States and is formulated in opposition to the contrasting one of concurrent jurisdiction. 
Both concepts refer to whether any one particular court is the only setting for judicial decision-making in which legal matters could be decided upon or if, alternately, the circumstances of a case allow more than one court, whether defined and differentiated by level, location, or placement within a State or the Federal Government, to take an interest and exercise control. 
In American legal theory and practice, questions over exclusive jurisdiction are provided for by U.S. Code, Title 28, Section 1334. In this way, it is defined for the purposes of U.S. courts in what circumstances a court can be understood to wield exclusive jurisdiction over some legal matter, and thus block other courts from taking any role in passing judgment on the matter at hand.
Exclusive jurisdiction generally fills a niche in the overall category of subject matter jurisdiction, as is also reserved for the opposing concept of concurrent jurisdiction, and is one of three basic kinds of jurisdiction. The other forms of jurisdiction are personal jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction.
As an example of how exclusive jurisdiction can work in practice in American justice, the Supreme Court has been empowered to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in an appellate capacity over the decisions previously made by lower courts. 

Justice of the Peace

Justice of the Peace

A Justice of the Peace is an official within a judicial system who typically holds less legal experience and training, and thus, reduced scope for judicial decision-making and action than that of a full-fledged judge. A Justice of the Peace wedding is one of the legally binding kinds of actions which these kinds of judicial officers are generally empowered to carry out. 
Within the United States, the rules surrounding the permissible activities and role of Justices of the Peace, and the basic understanding of what a Justice of the Peace constitutes, can vary on a state-by-state basis. 
In this regard, a U.S. Justice of the Peace might be a judge, but one who is empowered specifically to preside over the actions of a court which has been given only limited jurisdiction. 
Alternately, Justices of the Peace in the United States might be magistrates, or they might be officials of some other kind who have been appointed in certain kinds of judicial capacities.
In addition to a Justice of the Peace, various legal matters which can be entrusted to the decision-making of Justices of the Peace can include traffic-related legal measures or criminal actions which rise to the level of a misdemeanor and below the felony level.
A Justice of the Peace might also be given power over the bringing of small claims actions against defendants. Lastly, a Justice of the Peace wedding will specifically provide the participants with a civil marriage. 

Here’s A Quick Way to Understand Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Here's A Quick Way to Understand Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Subject matter jurisdiction comprises an important part of legal theory that pertains to the degree and scope of authority which can be wielded by judicial decision-making bodies when coming to decisions on legal matters. Subject matter jurisdiction is typically considered one of the basic types of jurisdiction, and as such, is typically distinguished from personal jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction.
 
 
In essence, subject matter jurisdiction pertains to the ability of the court in question to hear a certain kind of case. In this way, the violation of subject matter jurisdiction is considered to be more serious than those of personal or territorial jurisdiction, which, unlike it, can be waived if such is deemed necessary. 
 
 
When a court issues a decision in regard to a matter over which it does not possess subject matter jurisdiction, this decision will, when these circumstances are deemed later and elsewhere to have been in effect, be considered utterly without legal force and authority.
 
 
The concept of subject matter jurisdiction has helped to shape the conception of legal systems of various countries, the United States among them. In this way, U.S. courts are sometimes created for the purpose of hearing specific kinds of cases, as in the instances of family courts, probate courts, and those created for hearing civil and criminal matters. 
 
 
The superior courts in the legal systems of individual states typically have wide latitude to wield subject matter jurisdiction over a broadly defined array of cases, in contrast to the U.S. Federal courts, which tend to hold quite limited powers toward exercising subject matter jurisdiction.

Res Judicata

Writ of Mandamus

Prosecutors

Alibi

Arbitrary

Esquire

Caveat