Personal jurisdiction in the context of "Subject-matter jurisdiction"

Play Trivia Questions online!

or

Skip to study material about Personal jurisdiction in the context of "Subject-matter jurisdiction"

Ad spacer

⭐ Core Definition: Personal jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is a court's jurisdiction over the parties, as determined by the facts in evidence, which bind the parties to a lawsuit, as opposed to subject-matter jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction over the law involved in the suit. Without personal jurisdiction over a party, a court's rulings or decrees cannot be enforced upon that party, except by comity; i.e., to the extent that the sovereign which has jurisdiction over the party allows the court to enforce them upon that party. A court that has personal jurisdiction has both the authority to rule on the law and facts of a suit and the power to enforce its decision upon a party to the suit. In some cases, territorial jurisdiction may also constrain a court's reach, such as preventing hearing of a case concerning events occurring on foreign territory between two citizens of the home jurisdiction. A similar principle is that of standing or locus standi, which is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.

↓ Menu

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<

👉 Personal jurisdiction in the context of Subject-matter jurisdiction

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.

↓ Explore More Topics
In this Dossier

Personal jurisdiction in the context of State court (United States)

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.

↑ Return to Menu

Personal jurisdiction in the context of 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.

↑ Return to Menu