|
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction (also called jurisdiction ''ratione materiae')'' is the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter. For instance, bankruptcy court only has the authority to hear bankruptcy cases. Subject-matter jurisdiction must be distinguished from personal jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to render a judgment against a particular defendant, and territorial jurisdiction, which is the power of the court to render a judgment concerning events that have occurred within a well-defined territory. Unlike personal or territorial 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. To decide a case, a court must have a combination of subject (''subjectam'') and either personal (''personam'') or territorial (''locum'') jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction, personal or territorial jurisdict ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
United States Bankruptcy Court Seal
United may refer to: Places * United, Pennsylvania, an unincorporated community * United, West Virginia, an unincorporated community Arts and entertainment Films * ''United'' (2003 film), a Norwegian film * ''United'' (2011 film), a BBC Two film Literature * ''United!'' (novel), a 1973 children's novel by Michael Hardcastle Music * United (band), Japanese thrash metal band formed in 1981 Albums * ''United'' (Commodores album), 1986 * ''United'' (Dream Evil album), 2006 * ''United'' (Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell album), 1967 * ''United'' (Marian Gold album), 1996 * ''United'' (Phoenix album), 2000 * ''United'' (Woody Shaw album), 1981 Songs * "United" (Judas Priest song), 1980 * "United" (Prince Ital Joe and Marky Mark song), 1994 * "United" (Robbie Williams song), 2000 * "United", a song by Danish duo Nik & Jay featuring Lisa Rowe Television * ''United'' (TV series), a 1990 BBC Two documentary series * ''United!'', a soap opera that aired on BBC One from 1965-19 ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
United States Federal Courts
The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. The U.S. federal judiciary consists primarily of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts. It also includes a variety of other lesser federal tribunals. Article III of the Constitution requires the establishment of a Supreme Court and permits the Congress to create other federal courts and place limitations on their jurisdiction. Article III states that federal judges are appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate to serve until they resign, are impeached and convicted, or die. Courts All federal courts can be readily identified by the words "United States" (abbreviated to "U.S.") in their official names; no state court may include this designation as part of its name. The federal courts are generally divided between t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Civil Procedure
Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the rules and standards that courts follow when adjudicating civil lawsuits (as opposed to procedures in criminal law matters). These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced; what kind of service of process (if any) is required; the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases; the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure; the conduct of trials; the process for judgment; the process for post-trial procedures; various available remedies; and how the courts and clerks must function. Differences between civil and criminal procedure In most cases, criminal prosecutions are pursued by the state in order to punish offenders, although some systems, such as in English and French law, allow private citizens to bring a private prosecution. Conversely, civil actions are initiated by private individuals, companies or organizations, for their own benefit ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Specialized Court
Specialized court is a type of court with limited subject-matter jurisdiction concerning particular field of law, compared to 'ordinary court' with general subject-matter jurisdiction. This concept of court usually includes administrative court or family court. Specialized courts by country Austria Under hierarchical chain of ordinary courts compared to administrative courts in Austria, specialized court (''german: Fachgerichtsbarkeit'') for specific jurisdictions, including court on cartel cases (''german: Kartellgericht'') and court on employment - social welfare cases (''german: Arbeits- und Sozialgericht'') are established in Vienna. China Judiciary in the People's Republic of China includes the courts of special jurisdiction, translated as 'Specialized court' including matters concerning the military, national railway system and maritime disputes. India In India, various types of specialized tribunals are established for each of specific matters, including ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Limited Jurisdiction
Limited jurisdiction, or special jurisdiction, is the court's jurisdiction only on certain types of cases such as bankruptcy, and family matters. Courts of limited jurisdiction, as opposed to general jurisdiction, derive power from an issuing authority, such as a constitution or a statute. Special jurisdiction courts must demonstrate that they are authorized to exert jurisdiction under their issuing authority. In contrast, general jurisdiction courts need only to demonstrate that they may assert in personal jurisdiction over a party. Differences Sometimes the term "special courts" is used to refer to courts of limited jurisdiction: "Special courts" has unfortunate connotations, however, because the designation is often given by totalitarian governments to tribunals set up to persecute government opponents or otherwise help commit human rights abuses. That is a different kind of justice: not because it does not confer upon courts the power to hear only certain types of cases; but ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ordinary Court
Ordinary court or Judicial court is a type of court with comprehensive subject-matter jurisdiction compared to 'Specialized court' with limited jurisdiction over specific filed of matters, such as intellectual property court. Due to its comprehensive feature, ordinary courts usually deal with civil case and criminal case, and treated as core part of conventional judiciary. Especially for common law countries, the term '' superior court'' is used for courts with general jurisdiction (regardless of instance level in chain of appellate procedure), compared to courts with limited jurisdiction over minor, petty cases such as ''small claims court''. Sometimes, the term ''ordinary court'' is referred to courts with regular procedure or composition, compared to an '' extraordinary court'' with irregular procedure or composition. Ordinary courts by country France In France, ordinary courts (''french: ordre judiciaire'') are courts under TITLE VIII of Constitution of France sep ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
General Jurisdiction
{{Globalize, article, USA, 2name=the United States, date=December 2010 A court of general jurisdiction is a court with authority to hear cases of all kinds – criminal, civil, family, probate, and so forth. United States All federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Many U.S. states have divided their courts between criminal and civil, with some making further divisions, assigning probate, family law, and juvenile cases, for example, to specialized courts. General jurisdiction and judicial immunity One significant effect of the classification of a court is the liability that a judge from that court might face for stepping beyond the bounds of that court. Judges are able to claim judicial immunity for acts that are not completely beyond their jurisdiction. For example, if a probate judge were to sentence a person to jail, that judge would not have immunity and could be sued because a probate judge has no jurisdiction to effect a criminal sentence. However, a judge i ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Sua Sponte
In law, ''sua sponte'' (Latin: "of his, her, its or their own accord") or ''suo motu'' ("on its own motion") describes an act of authority taken without formal prompting from another party. The term is usually applied to actions by a judge taken without a prior motion or request from the parties. The form ''nostra sponte'' ("of our own accord") is sometimes used by the court itself, when the action is taken by a multi-member court, such as an appellate court, rather than by a single judge. (Third parties describing such actions would still refer to them as being taken by the court as a whole and therefore as 'sua sponte'.) While usually applied to actions of a court, the term may reasonably be applied to actions by government agencies and individuals acting in official capacity. One situation in which a party might encourage a judge to move ''sua sponte'' occurs when that party is preserving a special appearance (usually to challenge jurisdiction), and therefore cannot make motions ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (officially abbreviated Fed. R. Civ. P.; colloquially FRCP) govern civil procedure in United States district courts. The FRCP are promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, and then the United States Congress has seven months to veto the rules promulgated or they become part of the FRCP. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy-making body. Although federal courts are required to apply the substantive law of the states as rules of decision in cases where state law is in question, the federal courts almost always use the FRCP as their rules of civil procedure. States may determine their own rules, which apply in state courts, although 35 of the 50 states have adopted rules that are based on the FRCP. History The Rules, established in 1938, replaced the earlier procedures ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Removal Jurisdiction
In the United States, removal jurisdiction allows a defendant to move a civil action filed in a state court to the United States district court in the federal judicial district in which the state court is located. A federal statute governs removal. Generally, removal jurisdiction exists only if, at the time plaintiff filed the action in state court, the federal court had a basis for exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over the action, such as diversity of citizenship of the parties or where plaintiff's action involves a claim under federal law. If removal is based solely on diversity of citizenship, removal jurisdiction does not exist if any properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action is pending. Where removal jurisdiction exists, the defendant may remove the action to federal court by filing a notice of removal in the federal district court within 30 days after receiving the complaint. The defendant must file a copy of the notice of r ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Federal Question Jurisdiction
In United States law, federal question jurisdiction is a type of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives United States federal courts the power to hear civil cases where the plaintiff alleges a violation of the United States Constitution, federal law, or a treaty to which the United States is a party. The federal question jurisdiction statute is codified at . Statute Overview Article III of the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear such cases, so long as the United States Congress passes a statute to that effect. However, when Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the newly created federal courts to hear such cases, it initially chose not to allow the lower federal courts to possess federal question jurisdiction for fear that it would make the courts too powerful. The Federalists briefly created such jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1801, but it was repealed the following year, and not restored until 1875. Unlike diversity jurisd ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Diversity Jurisdiction
In the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives U.S. federal courts the power to hear lawsuits that do not involve a federal question. For a U.S. federal court to have diversity jurisdiction over a lawsuit, two conditions must be met. First, there must be "diversity of citizenship" between the parties, meaning the plaintiffs must be citizens of different U.S. states than the defendants. Second, the lawsuit's " amount in controversy" must be more than $75,000. If a lawsuit does not meet these two conditions, U.S. federal courts will normally lack the power to hear it unless it involves a federal question, and the lawsuit would need to be heard in state court instead. The United States Constitution, in Article III, Section 2, grants Congress the power to permit federal courts to hear diversity cases through legislation authorizing such jurisdiction. The provision was included because the Framers of the Constitution were ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
