1.6 Court Jurisdiction

Before a court may hear a case, it must be established that the court has authority over the matter in dispute. This authority is known as jurisdiction. There are courts of general jurisdiction; for example, state district courts may hear many different types of cases ranging from contract disputes to tort claims. Courts of limited jurisdiction, on the other hand, are empowered only to hear controversies of a specific nature. For example, federal bankruptcy courts are the only courts authorized to hear bankruptcy cases, and at the state level, only probate courts are authorized to hear wills and trust disputes.

Types of Court Jurisdiction

Generally, there are two types of court jurisdiction: (1) subject matter jurisdiction and (2) personal jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction , sometimes called in rem jurisdiction, means the court has authority to hear the case because it has jurisdiction over the property involved in the controversy. For example, a dispute arises over the ownership of a boat docked in San Diego, California, and both parties in the dispute are residents of Nevada. In this case, the California state court has jurisdiction to hear the dispute because the property is located in California.

Personal jurisdiction, or in personam jurisdiction, refers to the power of the court to exercise authority over the parties in the lawsuit. For example, a state supreme court has jurisdictional authority over all the residents and businesses within the state.

When a party submits a complaint to a court, he or she agrees to be subject to a court’s jurisdiction. A defendant becomes subject to a court’s jurisdiction by way of a summons—a legal notice of the complaint, usually delivered in person or to the place of the defendant’s residence. The power of courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over persons not living within its jurisdiction has expanded over time. Most states have a so-called long-arm statute, which allows a court to exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident person who has developed “minimum contacts” with the state by way of business interests, travel, or other factors, as long as principles of fundamental fairness are not violated. For example, the state of Oregon has personal jurisdiction over a Utah resident who caused a car accident in Oregon.

Jurisdiction Limits

In the federal courts, jurisdiction is limited to two situations. First, there must be a federal question present in the case. That is, the plaintiff’s case must include some reliance on interpretation of the Constitution, federal law, or international treaty. For example, the state of Oregon has personal jurisdiction over a Utah resident who caused a car accident in Oregon. Second, a case may also be heard by a federal court if there is diversity of citizenship among the parties to the dispute. This usually requires that the parties live in different states and that the case has over $75,000 at issue. For example, George, an Alabama resident, is driving his car in Alabama when he negligently hits and totals an $85,000 car driven by Michelle, a Tennessee resident. Because the parties reside in different states, Michelle can sue George and bring her case to federal court in Alabama. Unlike federal courts, states courts are not limited to federal question or diversity of citizenship disputes and have broad jurisdiction to hear many different types of cases.

Under the principles of jurisdiction, several different courts could have the authority to hear a given case. This is known as concurrent jurisdiction. For example, a case with parties in West Virginia and Utah could be brought in a state district court in West Virginia, a state court in Utah, or in a federal court in either jurisdiction. This can lead to what is known as forum shopping—searching for a court of jurisdiction that will most likely render the best result for the plaintiff. For example, if two states have jurisdiction, a plaintiff may choose to bring litigation in the state that has law most favorable to his or her cause, or where courts have a reputation for acting in a way the plaintiff favors.