Jurisdiction & Venue
Jurisdiction
The primary distinctions between areas of jurisdiction are codified at a national level. As a common law system, jurisdiction is conceptually divided between jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case and jurisdiction over the person of the litigants. (See personal jurisdiction.) Sometimes a court may exercise jurisdiction over property located within the perimeter of its powers without regard to personal jurisdiction over the litigants; this is called jurisdiction in rem.
A court whose subject-matter jurisdiction is limited to certain types of controversies (for example, suits in admiralty or suits where the monetary amount sought is less than a specified sum) is sometimes referred to as a court of special jurisdiction or court of limited jurisdiction.
A court whose subject-matter is not limited to certain types of controversy is referred to as a court of general jurisdiction. In the U.S. States, each state has courts of general jurisdiction; most states also have some courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal courts (those operated by the federal government) are courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is divided into federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. The United States District Courts may hear only cases arising under federal law and treaties, cases involving ambassadors, admiralty cases, controversies between states or between a state and citizens of another state, lawsuits involving citizens of different states, and against foreign states and citizens.
Certain courts, particularly the United States Supreme Court and most state supreme courts, have discretionary jurisdiction, meaning that they can choose which cases to hear from among all the cases presented on appeal. Such courts generally only choose to hear cases that would settle important and controversial points of law. Though these courts have discretion to deny cases they otherwise could adjudicate, no court has the discretion to hear a case that falls outside of its subject-matter jurisdiction.
It is also necessary to distinguish between original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. A court of original jurisdiction has the power to hear cases as they are first initiated by a plaintiff, while a court of appellate jurisdiction may only hear an action after the court of original jurisdiction (or a lower appellate court) has heard the matter. For example, in the U.S. federal court system, the United States District Courts have original jurisdiction over a number of different matters (as mentioned above), and the United States Courts of Appeals have appellate jurisdiction over matters appealed from the district courts. The U.S. Supreme Court, in turn, has appellate jurisdiction (of a discretionary nature) over the Courts of Appeals, as well as the state supreme courts, by means of writ of certiorari.
However, in a special class of cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to exercise original jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1251, the Supreme court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over controversies between two or more states, and original (but non-exclusive) jurisdiction over cases involving officials of foreign states, controversies between the federal government and a state, actions by a state against the citizens of another state or foreign country.
Personal Jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction in United States law refers to a court's power over a particular defendant (in personam jurisdiction) or an item of property (in rem jurisdiction). If a court does not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant or property, then the court cannot bind the defendant to an obligation or adjudicate any rights over the property. Personal jurisdiction is to be distinguished from subject-matter jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to render a judgment concerning a certain subject matter. Unlike subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction may be waived, even unintentionally, by a defendant. Personal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, and proper notice to the defendant are the three most fundamental constitutional prerequisites for a valid judgment.
Traditionally, in civil proceedings in the United States, the defendant or land in dispute was required to be physically served with process in the state where the court sits. The most famous statement of this principle arose in the Supreme Court's 1877 constitutional ruling in Pennoyer v. Neff. Over the years, the reach of personal jurisdiction has been expanded by judicial interpretations and legislative enactments. In the landmark 1945 case International Shoe Co. v. Washington, the United States Supreme Court greatly expanded the constitutional boundaries of personal jurisdiction, well beyond its traditional physical presence basis. Following International Shoe, states in the United States enacted so-called long-arm statutes, by which courts in a state can exercise jurisdiction over a party located outside the state, if the party has sufficient contacts within the state.
Constitutional Limits
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that constitutional requirements of due process limit the exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresidents. The same outer constitutional boundaries for personal jurisdiction apply in both state courts and federal courts. Moreover, because of Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP 4), a federal court ordinarily applies the personal jurisdiction statutes (e.g., long-arm statutes) of the state in which it sits, even when the state has not extended personal jurisdiction to its constitutional limits. (Some states, such as California, have long-arm statutes that give their courts personal jurisdiction to the extent constitutionally permitted.) In some exceptional circumstances, FRCP 4 grants a federal court personal jurisdiction when the law of the state in which it sits would not.
In general, to be subject to personal jurisdiction, a defendant that was not personally served with process within the state must have a sufficient level of personal or business contacts with the state in which the court sits that the defendant could reasonably expect to be sued there. These contacts are generally referred to by the term of art minimum contacts. Generally speaking, a party is subject to personal jurisdiction in a state if the party has purposely availed itself of the resources of protection of the state, and if the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. See International Shoe v. Washington. Leading cases finding minimum contacts sufficient for personal jurisdiction are International Shoe and Burger King v. Rudzewicz. Leading cases finding insufficient contacts for personal jurisdiction are World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson and Kulko v. Superior Court.
Personal jurisdiction problems are acute in cases involving business transactions conducted across state lines, where the defendant may not have set foot in the other state, but still conducted affairs with the other state's residents through correspondence, the shipment of goods, or indirect agents. Even more difficult, and more unsettled, personal jurisdiction issues arise in stream of commerce cases. In the quintessential stream of commerce case, a defendant in one state sells a widget to a manufacturer in the same state, which incorporates the widget into a retail product and sells it to a consumer in another state, who then sues claiming injury from the widget. The leading Supreme Court stream of commerce case, Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, resulted in a split, failing to clarify the issue.
Internet cases raise several troublesome personal jurisdiction problems. For example, a website may be viewed anywhere in the United States, though it is hosted in California and operated by a California citizen. Courts must decide in which locations, under what circumstances, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the citizen for claims arising from the website comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Jurisdiction In Rem
Jurisdiction in rem (Latin, power about or against "the thing") is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a "status" against a person over whom the court does not have "in personam jurisdiction". Jurisdiction in rem assumes the property or status is the primary object of the action, rather than personal liabilities not necessarily associated with the property (quasi in rem jurisdiction).
Within the US federal court system, jurisdiction in rem typically refers to the power a federal court may exercise over large items of moveable property, or real property, located within the court's jurisdiction. The most frequent circumstance in which this occurs in the Anglo-American legal system is when a suit is brought in admiralty law against a vessel to satisfy debts arising from the operation or use of the vessel. However, it can involve other things, such as Margaret Sanger's Japanese pessaries in United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries, an important case in United States reproductive and obscenity law. Another example of jurisdiction in rem was the United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola.
Within the US state court system, jurisdiction in rem may refer to the power the state court may exercise over real property or personal property or a person's marital status. State courts have the power to determine legal ownership of any real or personal property within the state's boundaries. A right in rem or a judgment in rem binds the world as opposed to rights and judgments inter partes which only bind those involved in their creation.
Quasi In Rem
Quasi in rem (Latin, "as if against a thing") is a legal term referring to a legal action based on property rights of a person absent from the jurisdiction. A quasi in rem action is commonly used when jurisdiction over the defendant is unobtainable due to his/her absence from the state. Any judgment will affect only the property seized, as in personam jurisdiction is unobtainable. Of note, in a quasi in rem case the court may lack personal jurisdiction over the defendant, but it has jurisdiction over the defendant's property. The property could be seized to obtain a claim against the defendant. A judgment based on quasi in rem jurisdiction generally affects rights to the property only between the persons involved and does not "bind the entire world" as does a judgment based on "jurisdiction in rem". The claim does not have to be related to the property seized, but the person must have minimum contacts with the forum state in order for jurisdiction to be proper.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
In civil procedure, the subject-matter jurisdiction of a court determines the kinds of claims or disputes over which it has jurisdiction, or the power to render a decision. Subject-matter jurisdiction must be distinguished from personal jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to render a judgment against a particular defendant. Unlike personal jurisdiction, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. A judgment from a court that did not have subject-matter jurisdiction is forever a nullity. Subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and adequate notice are the three most fundamental constitutional requirements for a valid judgment.
State Courts
In the United States, many state court systems are divided into divisions such as criminal, civil law, family, and probate. A court within any one of those divisions would lack subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a case regarding matters assigned to another division. Most U.S. state court systems, however, include a superior court that has "general" jurisdiction; that is, it is competent to hear any case over which no other tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction. Because the United States federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a very small percentage of cases (e.g., copyright and patent disputes), state courts have the authority to hear the vast majority of cases.
U.S. Federal Courts
Subject-matter jurisdiction is significantly more limited in United States federal courts. The maximal constitutional bounds of federal courts' subject-matter jurisdiction are defined by Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Federal courts' actual subject-matter jurisdiction derives from Congressional enabling statutes, namely 28 USC §§ 1330-1369 and 28 USC §§ 1441-1452. The United States Congress has not extended federal courts' subject-matter jurisdiction to its constitutional limits. For example, the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction is based on 28 USC § 1332, not a constitutional restriction. Moreover, Congress could constitutionally overrule the complete-diversity rule in diversity cases.
By far the most important two categories of federal subject-matter jurisdiction are federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. 28 USC § 1331, the enabling statute for federal question jurisdiction, endows the district courts with subject-matter jurisdiction in all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. As mentioned before, this jurisdiction is ordinarily not exclusive; states too can hear claims based on federal law. The enabling statute for diversity jurisdiction, § 1332, grants the district courts jurisdiction in an action that meets two basic conditions:
-
Complete diversity requirement. No defendant is a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff.
-
Amount in controversy requirement. The matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.
-
Federal courts also have removal jurisdiction, which is the authority to try cases removed by defendants from state courts. The contours of removal jurisdiction are almost identical to those of original jurisdiction.
According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a federal court may dismiss a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction upon motion of a party or sua sponte, upon its own initiative.
Diversity Jurisdiction
In United States law, diversity jurisdiction is a concept used in civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a U.S. (federal) district court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case due to the parties being "diverse" in citizenship, generally indicating that they are citizens of different states (corporate parties, and non-U.S. citizens can also be included). Diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction (i.e. jurisdiction over issues arising under federal law) constitute the two primary sources of subject matter jurisdiction in U.S. federal courts.
Diversity of Parties
Usually, in order for diversity jurisdiction to apply, none of the plaintiffs in a case can be from the same state as any of the defendants (complete diversity). A corporation is treated as a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated and the state in which its principal place of business is located, though a partnership or limited liability company is considered to have the citizenship of all of its constituent partners/members. Thus, a partnership with one partner sharing citizenship with an opposing party will destroy diversity of jurisdiction. Cities and towns (incorporated municipalities) are also treated as citizens of the states in which they are located, but states themselves are not considered citizens for the purpose of diversity. An alien (foreign national) who has been granted the status of U.S. permanent resident is treated as a citizen of the state where the alien resides.
The diversity jurisdiction statute also allows federal courts to hear cases in which:
-
Citizens of a U.S. state are parties on one side of the case, with nonresident alien(s) as adverse parties;
-
Complete diversity exists as to the U.S. parties, and nonresident aliens are additional parties;
-
A foreign state (i.e. country) is the plaintiff, and the defendants are citizens of one or more U.S. states; or
-
Under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, a class action can usually be brought in a federal court when there is just minimal diversity—i.e., any plaintiff is a citizen of a different state from any defendant. Class actions that do not meet the (not very stringent) requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act must have complete diversity between class representatives (not all class members) and the defendants.
A United States citizen who is domiciled outside the United States is not considered to be a citizen of any U.S. state, and cannot be considered an alien. The presence of such a person as a party completely destroys diversity jurisdiction, except for a class action or mass action in which minimal diversity exists with respect to other parties in the case.
If the case requires the presence of a party who is from the same state as an opposing party, or a party who is a U.S. citizen domiciled outside the country, the case must be dismissed, the absent party being deemed "indispensable". The determination of whether a party is indispensable is made by the court following the guidelines set forth in Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Amount in Controversy
The United States Congress has placed an additional barrier to diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy requirement. This is a minimum amount of money which the parties must be contesting is owed to them. As of mid 2007, under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a), civil actions must exceed the sum or value of $75,000. The amount specified has been regularly increased over the past two centuries. Courts will use the "legal certainty" test to decide whether the dispute is over $75,000. Under the "legal certainty" test, the court will accept the pleaded amount unless it is legally certain that the pleading party cannot recover more than $75,000. For example, if the dispute is solely over the breach of a contract by which the defendant had agreed to pay the plaintiff $10,000, a federal court will dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or remand the case to state court if it arrived via the removal process.
Venue
Venue is the location where a case is heard. In the United States, the venue is either a county (for cases in state court) or a district or division (for cases in federal court). Each case can only be brought in certain venues. For instance, in federal diversity cases, the venue can only be (1) the district where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state, (2) the district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, or (3) the district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction if there is no district in which the claim can otherwise be brought (28 U.S.C. § 1391).
Venue is a concept distinct from jurisdiction, which focuses on the authority of a court to hear a particular case. However, unlike personal jurisdiction, there is no constitutional requirement for proper venue in order to have a valid judgment.
A change of venue is the legal term for moving a trial to a new location. In high-profile matters, a change of venue may occur to move a jury trial away from a location where a fair and impartial jury may not be possible due to widespread publicity about a crime and/or defendant(s) to another community in order to obtain jurors who can be more objective in their duties. This change may be a few towns away, or across the state.
Forum Non Conveniens
Forum non conveniens (Latin for "inconvenient forum" or "inappropriate forum") is a discretionary power of mostly common law courts to refuse to hear a proceeding that has been brought before it. The courts will refuse to take jurisdiction over matters where there is a more appropriate forum available to the parties. The legal concept of forum non conveniens is not exclusive to common law nations: The Maritime Courts of the Republic of Panama, although not a common law jurisdiction, also have similar power.
The doctrine is also used both internationally and domestically. Countries with overlapping, parallel or exclusive courts such as the United States and Canada also use the doctrine to decide when a judgment from a neighboring court should be recognized and enforced. It is an important organizing principle in the field of conflict of laws. The underlying principles, such as basing respect given to foreign courts on reciprocal respect or comity, also apply in civil law systems (lis alibi pendens). A concern often raised in applications of the doctrine is forum shopping, or picking a court merely to gain an advantage in the proceeding.
