1. Jurisdiction
a. Overview: Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and render a decision in a case.
i. Three kinds of jurisdiction – Must have all three types!!
1. Subject Matter
2. Personal
3. Issue
b. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
i. Overview: Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear a particular kind of case.
ii. State Subject Matter Jurisdiction
1. Overview: The state has general subject matter jurisdiction, “open door” policy.
2. Limitations: State subject matter jurisdiction is limited by:
a. Local Action Rule (common law exception)
i. Tennessee Coal, Iron & R.R. Co. v. George
1. Facts: A railroad worker from Georgia was injured while working in Alabama. He filed suit in Georgia, but based his claim on Alabama law. The railroad asserts that all claims based on Alabama law must be brought in Alabama. This assertion is based on a statute in Alabama.
2. Holding: The Full Faith and Credit Act (U.S. Const. Art. 4 § 1) states that no state may limit the judicial power of any other state. Alabama law cannot preclude Georgia from hearing the case. Most cases are transitory. Sometimes right and remedy are so closely connected they must be heard in that jurisdiction, ex. r/e transactions
ii. Wilson v. Thelen
1. Facts: Wilson brought a claim in Wyoming to gain interest in an oil lease located on land in Montana. The Wyoming court found Wilson had an interest in the land. Thelon filed suit in Montana regarding the same land, and the Montana court found that Thelon had the rights to the land.
2. Holding: The “local action rule” provides that ownership of real property must be decided by the state where the property is located. Therefore, the Wyoming court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, and the Montana court did not have to give their ruling “full faith and credit.”
iii. Gammon v. Gammon (Gammon exception to the Local Action Rule)
1. Facts: The divorce proceedings took place in Oregon. The Oregon court ordered that the wife take the entire ownership of the Montana properties. The wife brought the case to Montana to get the title/deed to the land which she was awarded in the Oregon court.
2. Holding: If judge isn’t trying to affect the title, we will enforce the judgment. The ruling in Oregon did not make an effective title transfer, but Montana upheld the equity decision and transferred the title. Oregon did not have subject matter jurisdiction to transfer the title, but they did have subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the equities. Only Montana courts had subject matter jurisdiction for the title transfer!!
b. Federal Law—found in USCA. Bankruptcy and admiralty cases cannot be heard in state courts b/c federal law has provided special courts for these types of claims.
c. State Constitution
i. State ex rel. Bennett v. Bonner, Gov.
1. Facts: “Lazy Judge out fishing.” The judge was not hearing cases, which made the attorneys angry. The attorneys went to the governor who appointed other judges in the state to hear cases.
2. Holding: The governor did not have the authority to appoint other judges to hear the cases. The constitution of the state provides that the supreme court of the state is the supervisor of the lower courts, and they have the power to determine the appropriate remedy when a district court or a district judge is
ute. Regardless of which court system the case is brought in, federal law and federal civil procedure must be used. (no monetary minimum for these cases)
b. Diversity of Citizenship and more than $75,000 in question
i. Two requirements: Diverse parties & monetary minimum of $75M exclusive of interests and costs (can include punitive damages, can’t combine P’s claims, each must meet min. rqumt.)
ii. There must be complete diversity among all parties. None of the plaintiffs can be domiciled in any of the same places the defendants domicile.
iii. Domicile—residency plus intent. Domicile is determined at the time the suit is commenced.
iv. Policy—prejudice may occur in state courts toward the non-citizen; thus the diversity of citizenship protects the non-citizen from such prejudice by allowing, on appeal, for the claim to be taken out of the state.
v. Choice of Law issues occur in diversity cases. State law applies in the following instances:
1. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
