Asked in Law & Legal Issues
Law & Legal Issues
Doing substantial business in a jurisdiction exclusively over the internet is not enough to support jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant?
October 13, 2009 11:52AM
TRUE: Under the "sliding-scale" standard the courts have identified that substancial business conducted over the internet (with contracts and sales,; for example) that jurisdiction in over an out-of-state defendant in this case is proper.
How does a court get jurisdiction of a defendant?
It depends on the type of court case. In civil cases, assuming the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit to begin with, the defendant must have minimum contacts with the state for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. In criminal cases, the state must prove the defendant committed the crime within the court's venue.
Asked in Criminal Law
Can a defendant be held without bail after arraignment?
Asked in Law & Legal Issues
What is the difference between subject matter and personal jurisdiction?
Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the type of case. For example, only bankruptcy court may have jurisdiction in a bankruptcy case. Personal jurisdiction refers to jurisdiction over the parties. If a defendant lives in Miami, a New York court probably doesn't have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and therefore could not bind him with a judgment.
How do you use word jurisdiction in a sentence?
The volunteer fire department only has jurisdiction within one township. His crime was committed outside of the court's jurisdiction. The officer had no jurisdiction in this county. Personal jurisdiction in United States Law refers to a court's power over a particular defendant or an item of property. The federal court and the state court had concurrent jurisdiction over the defendant because of the nature of the crimes.
What is the difference between specific jurisdiction and general jurisdiction under general US laws?
General jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction is somewhat related to the Minimum contacts analysis put forth by International Shoe. A state that has general jurisdiction over a Defendant, either a person or a corporation, has the power over the Defendant for any claim arising in the world (meaning the claim does not have to have a transactional relationship with the forum (court asserting personal jurisdiction)). However, to have general jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must have systematic and continuous contacts with the state. Other points to remember for general jurisdiction: 1) a state always has general jurisdiction over a corporation that is headquartered there (i.e the state has power to bring the defendant, that has its headquarters there, into court for a claim arising outside of the state.) 2) a state always has general jurisdiction over a person that is domiciled in that state (i.e the state has power to bring the defendant, that has its domiciled there, into court for a claim arising outside of the state.) Specific Jurisdiction requires a transactional relationship (i.e the claims arises out of the Defendants in state activities (transactional relationship)), but only requires minimal minimum contacts, not systematic and continuous. Specific jurisdiction only allows the court power to adjudicate claims over the defendant arising out its in state activity.
Can a defendant who resides in a state contest personal jurisdiction in cases filed in state court?
Asked in Civil Process, Civil Cases
Can a civil court change the status of plaintiff to be the defendant?
No. Whoever files first is the Plaintiff. If the Defendant then chooses to "cross-sue", the Defendant will still be the defendant on the pleadings even though by virtue thereof, the defendant has launched what is called a counter-claim. In such a scenario, the Defendant will have to defend the Plaintiff's claim, and progress the counter-claim ---- in the same way the plaintiff will need to progress its claim as Plaintiff (and yes, in the same way, the Plaintiff will have to defend the counter-claim launched by the Defendant). By way of additional info, note that the "whoever files first" rule is generally applied to "fix" jurisdiction too. Although the general rule is that the Defendant should be sued in its own jurisdiction, rules modify this basic approach, most often by way of the applicable treaty (e.g. by "special jurisdiction" and "exclusive jurisdiction") and thus by such rules, often the plaintiff is able to sue in its own jurisdiction. Therefore if both potential parties believe they have a claim against the other, where the rules allow for the jurisdiction to be in the plaintiff's own, then it works on a "first come first served basis.
Asked in Civil Lawsuits
In civil matters lawsuits when your are the Defendant is it wise to file a motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint and exhibit upon which it is based before an answer is filed?
My opinion is no. A defendant should file an answer and the motion to dismiss at the same time (if there are grounds to have the matter dismissed, of course). In fact this may even be required in most states. An Answer should be filed even if the reason for the dismissal is lack of jurisdiction over the defendant or subject matter. Sometimes, a defendant who files an Answer is held to have waived any claim of lack of personal jurisdiction. By filing the Answer he/she has just submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. But every Answer can provide that the defendant objects to personal jurisdiction as well as to the merits of the claim and retains the right to request dismissal at a later time. This ensures that the filing of the Answer does not waive the right to object to personal jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss may be filed later. personal jurisdictions ?
Asked in Civil Lawsuits
In what court does the plaintiff sue the defendant?
Asked in Civil Lawsuits, Facebook, Rainforests
Can someone sue another person if they do not live in the same state?
Yes, they can, but the court must have jurisdiction over the defendant (the person you sue). In general, the court will have jurisdiction if the defendant has some connection to the state you are suing in such that it is reasonable for the defendant to be forced into court in that state. For example, the defendant has a business in the state, or the lawsuit is about a product that the defendant sold in the state, or something the defendant did in his state had a predictable (and harmful) effect in the state where the lawsuit is brought. You cannot sue a person in a state where that person has absolutely no connection (e.g., doesn't live here, has never been here, has no business connection here, etc.). Think of it this way: If the defendant injured you somehow in Nevada, you couldn't sue him in California (unless he or she lived in California too). But if a defendant standing in Nevada shot you with a gun and the bullet hit you in California, you could sue the defendant in California because the defendant intentionally caused harm in California, creating the necessary connection to the state. In federal court you can sue a person in another state. This is because there is a type of jurisdiction particular to federal courts that is cdalled "diversity jurisdiction". This refers to the fact that the federal court is consideered to be the neutral territory for suit between citizens of different states. It dates back to an old their that courts in one state would be prejudiced against litigants from other states. Another aspect of jurisdiction is "personal jurisdiction". This refers to the concept that a defendant must be served with precess (i.e. the summons and complaint) do that the court has jurisdiction over them. This is considered to be a due proce3ss right in that the person being sued has knowledge of the suit and is given the chance to defend.
Asked in Civil Lawsuits, Civil Process, Civil Cases
When voluntarily dismissing a lawsuit must the parties to the lawsuit sign?
What is one to do if plaintiff is lying about the defendant?
Question is unclear, because the term "plaintiff" is used exclusively in a civil law cases, and the term "defendant" is used exclusively in a criminal law casea. Which is it? Actually the only thing that anyone can do is try to bring out the lying factor during testimony. If any attorneys are involved - be sure they know about it also.
Asked in Law & Legal Issues
What does defendant admonished to trial in absentia mean?
Asked in Civil Cases, Arizona
How do you get the paperwork to file a small claim in Arizona?
Asked in Criminal Law, US Constitution
What reasons would you not have a possibility for bail or bond?
Waiver of jurisdictional defenses?
I believe this falls under 'change of venue'. A defendant or the prosecution may ask a judge to change the venue or to change the jurisdiction where the case is being prosecuted. This may be the case if a defendant believes he may get a fair trial. A jurisdictional defense is one based on whether the court has jurisdiction over the defendant. For example, if one has to be personally served but was served by some other, unauthorized means, the court may not have jurisdiction over that person. In other words that person has a jurisdictional defense to the action. If however, the person appears in court and does not raise the jurisdiction issue, he/she has waived that defense. Here's how this plays out. A plaintiff claims to have served a defendant with process. Once the defendant does not answer within the time prescribed by law, the plaintiff would then move for a default judgment. The defendant become aware of the default judgment when the plaintiff attempts to execute on it (e.g., restrain his bank account...) The defendant then files a motion/order to show cause asking the court to vacate the default judgment. The plaintiff agrees to vacate the judgment provided the defendant "waives jurisdictional defenses,"i.e. lack of personal service.
What is a reverse split sentence?