Yes, a New York trial court generally has subject jurisdiction over actions based on New York state law, as these courts are established to handle such matters. Personal jurisdiction over the defendant typically exists if the defendant resides in New York, is served with process in the state, or has sufficient minimum contacts with New York that justify the court's authority. However, specific circumstances may affect personal jurisdiction, so it's important to evaluate each case individually.
It means that a plaintiff usually sues in the jurisdiction where the subject of the lawsuit or the defendant is located. Actor, (meaning the party taking the action or plaintiff), sequitur, (meaning follows), forum, (meaning jurisdiction), rei,( meaning of the thing involved. )
A court must have proper jurisdiction. This consists of subject matter jurisdiction (where the court legal authority to hear the matter) and personal jurisdiction (where the court has proper contacts with the persons involved in the action).
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.
It is unclear from the question as to whether a civil or a criminal violation is being referred to, or what country the offense took place in. Either way - the "claimant" would have to initiate legal action against the "defendant" in the jurisdiction of whatever "small island" is being referred to. The court action must be begun and pursued entirely in the jurisdiction where the alleged wrong occurred, it cannot be transferred to New York if the offense did not take place in New York.
In law, subject matter jurisdiction is the "item" or the "object" of the legal action. Subject matter jurisdiction is a court's power to hear a certain type of case. All courts can't hear all cases. Different courts are set up to hear different types of cases. For instance, federal courts can't hear cases involving purely state related subject matter. Or a small claims court generally can't hear a case involving a dispute over $5,000,000. A juvenile court would have the subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case involving a delinquent child, but would not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a murder case involving an adult. Subject matter jurisdiction Distinguished from personal jurisdiction - which deals with the basis of a court's authority to try a particular person. Example: Does a NY court have personal jurisdiction over a Texas resident? Subject matter jurisdiction deals with a court's power to try the particular subject matter in front of it *or intended to be brought in front of it.) Example: Is the Circuit court of YouNameIt County permitted to try a case involving more than $12,000?
Complete your question. You have not given enough facts to determine who Garner, foreman or manager are and they're relationship to each other, the state of Nevada or the subject matter of the lawsuit to answer whether Nevada would have personal jurisdiction over the two.
The term 'plaintiff' indicates that the question is about the 'wronged individual' a civil case. They testify about the facts pertaining to how they were wronged by an action or actions of the defendant/respondent. These allegations are subject to the cross-examination of the defendants (respondent's) defense attorney.
Depends on the jurisdiction but, as a general rule, yes. Check your local legislature, or that where the action is being taken.
A witness in an action is not considered a party. The only parties are the plaintiff, defendant and the various variations of them. In other words, only the persons or entities that have some personal or propery interest to protect in the lawsuit.
The subject of the sentence is judge; the verb is ruled.
plaintiff
Depends upon the Limitation Act applicable in the jurisdiction were the cause of action lies.