Limited jurisdiction in the context of "Ordinary court"

A lower court or inferior court is a court from which an appeal may be taken, usually referring to courts other than supreme court. In relation to an appeal from one court to another, the lower court is the court whose decision is being reviewed, which may be the original trial court or some of appellate court lower in rank than the supreme court which is hearing the appeal. In other words, lower courts are 'lower' in hierarchical chain of appellate procedure than other higher appellate courts. Usually it is obligation of a lower court to follow the decision of higher appellate court, even in civil law countries where precedents have no binding power.

Some common law countries use term "lower court" or "inferior court" as antonym for "superior court", meaning such lower courts have only limited jurisdiction according to importance of case (usually decided by monetary amount of claims). For information on this kind of courts, see Small claims court and superior court.

A judicial officer is a person with the responsibilities and powers to facilitate, arbitrate, preside over, and make decisions and directions with regard to the application of the law.

Judicial officers are typically categorized as judges, magistrates, puisne judicial officers such as justices of the peace or officers of courts of limited jurisdiction; and notaries public and commissioners of oaths. The powers of judicial officers vary and are usually limited to a certain jurisdiction.

In the United States, a state court is a court of law with jurisdiction over disputes with some connection to a U.S. state. State courts handle the overwhelming majority of civil and criminal cases in the United States; the United States federal courts are far smaller in terms of both personnel and caseload, and handle different types of cases. The number of cases filed in state courts each year surpasses the number of cases filed in federal courts by a factor of over two hundred. States often provide their trial courts with general jurisdiction (the hearing of all matters in which personal jurisdiction exists and which are not committed to another court) and state trial courts regularly have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and their subject-matter jurisdiction arises only under federal law.

Each state "is free to organize its courts as it sees fit," and consequently, "no two states have identical court structures." Generally, state courts are common law courts, and apply their respective state laws and procedures to decide cases. They are organized pursuant to and apply the law in accordance with their state's constitution, state statutes, and binding decisions of courts in their state court hierarchy. Where applicable, they also apply federal law, or need to make a choice of law from another jurisdiction.

The United States district courts are the trial courts of the U.S. federal judiciary. There is one district court for each federal judicial district. Each district covers one U.S. state or a portion of a state. There is at least one federal courthouse in each district, and many districts have more than one. District court decisions are appealed to the U.S. court of appeals for the circuit in which they reside, except for certain specialized cases that are appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

District courts are courts of law, equity, and admiralty, and can hear both civil and criminal cases. But unlike U.S. state courts, federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and can only hear cases that involve disputes between residents of different states, questions of federal law, or federal crimes.

Subject-matter jurisdiction, also called jurisdiction ratione materiae, is a legal doctrine regarding the ability of a court to lawfully hear and adjudicate a case. Subject-matter relates to the nature of a case; whether it is criminal, civil, whether it is a state issue or a federal issue, and other substantive features of the case. Courts must have subject-matter jurisdiction over the particular case in order to hear it. A court is given the ability to hear a case by a foundational document, usually a Constitution. Courts are granted either general jurisdiction or limited jurisdiction, depending on their type. For example, in the US, state courts have general jurisdiction over the affairs within their state. That means, for most cases, subject-matter jurisdiction of the state courts covers nearly all subjects within that state, such as family law, state criminal law, state civil claims, state tort claims, etc. That power is usually vested in the state courts by their state Constitution. Limited jurisdiction, by contrast, would mean a court does not have jurisdiction over any given case unless specific conditions are met. US federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, as specific conditions, as outlined in 28 USC 1332, must be met before a federal court can hear a case.

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.