Legal Basis for Jurisdiction

For example, the plaintiff could have properly established that a state civil court has subject matter jurisdiction, but if he files his case in court a few hours away on the other side of the state, it can create a logistical nightmare for the parties and witnesses involved. In this case, the defendant could request that the case be moved to a more appropriate location. “2. The States Parties to this Statute may at any time declare that they accept ipso facto and without special agreement the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of any other State assuming the same obligation in respect of any other dispute concerning: jurisdiction shall be divided into two pillars: personal jurisdiction and jurisdiction ratione materiae. For the competency to be correct, both components must be completed. It should also be noted that most cases, even those involving a federal matter or meeting the diversity jurisdictional criteria, can be filed and argued in state courts. However, the defendant has the right, if necessary, to file a request for referral of the case to the Federal Court. Substantive jurisdiction is the power of the court to decide the issue in a dispute, such as a treaty question or a civil rights issue. State courts have general jurisdiction, which means that they can hear all controversies except those prohibited by state law (for example, some states deny subject matter jurisdiction over a matter that does not involve citizens of the state and did not take place in the state) and those assigned to federal courts with exclusive jurisdiction. such as: Bankruptcy matters (see 28 U.S.C. § 1334). Federal courts have limited jurisdiction in that they can only hear cases that fall within the scope of both the Constitution in Article III, Section 2, and acts of Congress (see 28 U.S.C.

§1251, §1253, §1331, §1332). A threshold for all federal courts is the presence or absence of constitutional status. The requirement of authority, as enshrined in Article III of the Constitution, allows federal courts to adjudicate only cases or controversies. A case or controversy must include an actual violation that can be remedied. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, p. 559. In the absence of constitutional validity, there is no material jurisdiction.

This restriction prevents courts whose members are not elected and therefore not politically accountable from influencing the law in a legislative capacity. In this sense, permanent doctrine and material competence facilitate the separation of powers. (e) The Court of Justice shall itself rule on all questions concerning its jurisdiction. More than one court may have jurisdiction in a given case. Competence can be divided into two categories: personal competence and material competence. Personal jurisdiction is the requirement that a particular court has jurisdiction over the defendant, based on minimal contact with the forum. Jurisdiction ratione materiae is the requirement that a given court has jurisdiction to decide the specific type of action brought before that court. Although litigants may waive their personal jurisdiction, they may not waive their material jurisdiction.

In a federal court, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to dismiss for lack of substantive jurisdiction is considered the preferred defence and may be made at any time during the dispute, even if the parties had previously argued that there was substantive jurisdiction. Indeed, the court may dismiss an action sua sponte (alone) for lack of jurisdiction on the merits. See, for example, Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1). To these acts must be added other treaties and conventions concluded previously which confer jurisdiction on the Permanent Court of International Justice, since article 37 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice provides that, where a treaty or convention in force provides for the referral of a case to a tribunal to be established by the League of Nations, or to the Permanent Court of International Justice, the matter shall be resolved with respect to: referred the Parties to the Statute to the International Court of Justice.