DOCSLIB.ORG

Civil Jurisdiction Thresholds

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Civil Jurisdiction Thresholds Civil Jurisdiction Thresholds State Amount Statute Language Date of Last Change The circuit court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all civil actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), Code of Ala. § exclusive of interest and costs, and shall HB 449 of 1995 12-11-30(1) exercise original jurisdiction concurrent with the district court in all civil actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds three thousand dollars ($3,000), exclusive of interest and costs. The original civil jurisdiction of the Alabama $10,000 district court of Alabama shall be uniform throughout the state, concurrent with the circuit court, except as otherwise provided, and shall include all civil actions in which the matter in Code of Ala. § controversy does not exceed ten HB 449 of 1995 12-12-30 thousand dollars ($10,000), exclusive of interest and costs, and civil actions based on unlawful detainer; except, that the district court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters… The district court has jurisdiction of civil cases, including foreign judgments filed under AS 09.30.200 and arbitration Alaska Stat. § Alaska $100,000 proceedings under AS 09.43.170 or HB 227 of 2004 22.15.030(a) 09.43.530 to the extent permitted by AS 09.43.010 and 09.43.300, as follows [$100,000] Justices of the peace have exclusive original jurisdiction of all civil actions A.R.S. § 22- when the amount involved, exclusive of Arizona $10,000 HB 2750 of 2007 201(B) interest, costs and awarded attorney fees when authorized by law, is ten thousand dollars or less. The district courts shall have subject A.C.A. § 16- matter jurisdiction as established by SB 462 of 2003 17-704 Supreme Court rule. Arkansas $5,000 The district court shall have original AR Sup. Ct. jurisdiction within its territorial Adm. Order jurisdiction over the following civil No. 18(3)(b-d) matters [$5,000]. California n/a (single tier trial court) Civil Jurisdiction Thresholds State Amount Statute Language Date of Last Change On and after January 1, 1991, the county court shall have concurrent original jurisdiction with the district court in civil actions, suits, and proceedings in which the debt, damage, or value of the C.R.S. 13-6- personal property claimed does not Colorado $15,000 ??? of 1990 104 exceed fifteen thousand dollars, including by way of further example, and not limitation, jurisdiction to hear and determine actions in tort and assess damages therein not to exceed fifteen thousand dollars. Connecticut n/a (limited jurisdiction court has Probate jurisdiction only) The Court [of Common Pleas] shall have jurisdiction over all civil actions at law 10 Del. C. § Delaware $50,000 where the matter or thing in HB 527 of 1994 1322(a) controversy, exclusive of interest, does not exceed $50,000. County courts shall have original jurisdiction… Of all actions at law in which the matter in controversy does Fla. Stat. § not exceed the sum of $15,000, Florida $15,000 ??? of 1990 34.01(1)(c) exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney's fees, except those within the exclusive jurisdiction of the circuit courts… Each state court shall have jurisdiction, within the territorial limits of the county or counties for which it was created and concurrent with the superior courts, O.C.G.A. § 15- over the following matters… The trial of ??? of 1981 7-4 civil actions without regard to the None (State amount in controversy, except those Court); actions in which exclusive jurisdiction is $25,000 or vested in the superior courts. $45,000 (Civil Each magistrate court and each Georgia Court, two magistrate thereof shall have jurisdiction counties); and power over the following matters… $15,000 The trial of civil claims including (Magistrate’s garnishment and attachment in which Court) O.C.G.A. § 15- ??? of 1999 ($5,000 to exclusive jurisdiction is not vested in the 10-2(5) $15,000) superior court and the amount demanded or the value of the property claimed does not exceed $15,000.00, provided that no prejudgment attachment may be granted Civil Jurisdiction Thresholds State Amount Statute Language Date of Last Change Except as otherwise provided, the district courts shall have jurisdiction in all civil actions where the debt, amount, damages, or value of the property claimed does not exceed $25,000, except in civil actions involving summary HB 1846 of 2014 possession or ejectment, in which case ($25,000 to $40,000); HRS § 604- the district court shall have jurisdiction SB 2785 of 2008 Hawaii $40,000 5(a) over any counterclaim otherwise ($20,000 to $25,000); properly brought by any defendant in HB 2326 of 1994 the action if the counterclaim arises out ($10,000 to $20,000) of and refers to the land or premises the possession of which is being sought, regardless of the value of the debt, amount, damages, or property claim contained in the counterclaim. Subject to rules promulgated by the supreme court, the administrative judge in each judicial district or any district judge in the district designated by him SB 1400 of 2006 may assign to magistrates, severally, or ($4,000 to $5,000); Idaho Code § by designation of office, or by class or SB 1393 of 2000 1-2208(1)(a) category of cases, or in specific instances ($3,000 to $4,000); the following matters… When the HB 714 of 1992 amount of money or damages or the ($2,000 to $3,000) value of personal property claimed does not exceed five thousand dollars $5,000 or ($5,000) Idaho $10,000 (atty The jurisdiction of an attorney magistrate) magistrate is the same as that of a district judge, but the cases assignable to an attorney magistrate shall be those assignable to all magistrates and the Idaho Civil following additional cases may be Procedure assigned to attorney magistrates when Rule approved by the administrative district 82(c)(2)(A) judge of a judicial district… Civil actions regardless of the nature of the action, where the amount of damages or value of the property claimed does not exceed $10,000 Illinois n/a (single tier trial court) A city court has concurrent jurisdiction Burns Ind. with the circuit court in civil cases in Indiana Code Ann. § which the amount in controversy does 33-35-2-4 not exceed five hundred dollars ($500). Iowa n/a (single tier trial court) Kansas n/a (limited jurisdiction court has no civil jurisdiction) Civil Jurisdiction Thresholds State Amount Statute Language Date of Last Change District Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction in: Civil cases in which the KRS § Kentucky $5,000 amount in controversy does not exceed SB 108 of 2011 24A.120(1) five thousand dollars ($5,000), exclusive of interest and costs… Except as otherwise provided by law, the civil jurisdiction of a parish court is concurrent with the district court in CCP 4842(A) Prior to 1992 $20,000 cases where the amount in dispute, or Louisiana (Parish); the value of the property involved, does $15,000 - not exceed twenty thousand dollars. $50,000 (city) City Court civil jurisdiction is $15,000 generally, but over two dozen named CCP 4843 Various cities have exemptions ranging from $20,000 to $50,000. Maine n/a (limited jurisdiction court has Probate jurisdiction only) Except as provided in § 4-402 of this subtitle, and subject to the venue provisions of Title 6 of this article, the Md. COURTS District Court has exclusive original civil AND JUDICIAL jurisdiction in… An action in contract or HB 1109 of 2007 Maryland $30,000 PROCEEDINGS tort, if the debt or damages claimed do ($25,000 to $30,000) Code Ann. § not exceed $30,000, exclusive of 4-401 prejudgment or postjudgment interest, costs, and attorney's fees if attorney's fees are recoverable by law or contract… The [superior] court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of civil actions for the foreclosure of mortgages, and of real and mixed actions, except those of which the land court or district courts have jurisdiction, of complaints for flowing lands, and of claims against the commonwealth. Except as otherwise provided by law, the court shall have Massachusetts ALM GL ch. $25,000 original jurisdiction of civil actions for ??? 212, § 3 money damages. The actions may proceed in the court only if there is no reasonable likelihood that recovery by the plaintiff will be less than or equal to $25,000, or an amount ordered from time to time by the supreme judicial court. Where multiple damages are allowed by law, the amount of single damages claimed shall control. Civil Jurisdiction Thresholds State Amount Statute Language Date of Last Change Except as otherwise provided by law, the district court and Boston municipal court departments shall have original jurisdiction of civil actions for money ALM GL ch. damages. The actions may proceed in ??? 218, § 19 the courts only if there is no reasonable likelihood that recovery by the plaintiff will exceed $25,000, or an amount ordered from time to time by the supreme judicial court. The district court has exclusive MCLS § jurisdiction in civil actions when the ??? of 1996 ($10,000 Michigan $25,000 600.8301(1) amount in controversy does not exceed to $25,000) $25,000.00. Minnesota n/a (single tier trial court) The jurisdiction of the county court shall be as follows: It shall have jurisdiction concurrent with the justice court in all matters, civil and criminal of which the justice court has jurisdiction; and it shall Miss. Code have jurisdiction concurrent with the HB 973 of 2003 Mississippi $200,000 Ann.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Civil Liability for False Affidavits
    CIVIL LIABILITY FOR FALSE not recklessly disregarded the truth. The AFFIDAVITS purpose of this article is to discuss the liability that a law enforcement officer Bryan R. Lemons may incur in such a situation. Part I of the Acting Division Chief article discusses the mechanisms through which civil rights lawsuits are generally “Reasonable minds frequently may brought against state and federal law differ on the question whether a particular enforcement officers. Part II generally affidavit establishes probable cause,”1 and discusses the concept of “qualified “great deference” is to be given to immunity.” And Part III discusses the magistrate’s determination of the matter.2 requirements for holding a law Generally, a law enforcement officer is not enforcement officer liable for submitting expected to question a probable cause an affidavit with false or misleading determination made by a magistrate information in it. judge.3 Instead, BACKGROUND a magistrate’s determination of probable The primary federal statute under cause is to be given which lawsuits are filed against state and considerable weight and local law enforcement officers for violating a person’s constitutional rights is should be overruled only 5 when the supporting Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. This affidavit, read as a whole in statute was directed at state officials who a realistic and common used the authority granted them to deprive sense manner, does not newly freed slaves of constitutional rights. allege specific facts and The purpose of the statute “is to deter state circumstances from which actors from using their authority to deprive the magistrate could individuals of their federally guaranteed rights and to provide relief to victims if reasonably conclude that 6 the items sought to be such deterrence fails.” While section seized are associated with 1983 may be used to sue state actors the crime and located in the acting under color of state law, it may not place indicated.4 be used against the federal government or However, a plaintiff may challenge 5 Title 42 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstention and Primary Jurisdiction: Two Chips Off the Same Block?
    Cornell Law Review Volume 60 Article 3 Issue 1 November 1974 Abstention and Primary Jurisdiction Two Chips Off the aS me Block-a Comparative Analysis Sidney A. Shapiro Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Sidney A. Shapiro, Abstention and Primary Jurisdiction Two Chips Off ht e Same Block-a Comparative Analysis, 60 Cornell L. Rev. 75 (1974) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol60/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ABSTENTION AND PRIMARY JURISDIC- TION: TWO CHIPS OFF THE SAME BLOCK?-A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS* Sidney A. Shapirot I INTRODUCTION A plaintiff who properly qualifies for federal jurisdiction may not always receive a hearing in federal court. Although the right of the plaintiff to be in federal court is to be respected,1 other concerns of administering justice sometimes result in the federal courts sending the plaintiff to litigate his claims elsewhere. Two of the most frequently espoused reasons for sending plaintiffs to another decision-maker are the doctrines of abstention and pri- mary jurisdiction.2 * The views herein expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Trade Commission. t Member of the Pennsylvania Bar. Staff Attorney for the Federal Trade Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdiction Over Crimes Albert Levitt
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 16 | Issue 4 Article 5 1926 Jurisdiction over Crimes Albert Levitt Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Albert Levitt, Jurisdiction over Crimes, 16 J. Am. Inst. Crim. L. & Criminology 495 (May 1925 to February 1926) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. JURISDICTION OVER CRIMTlES-ll ALBERT LEvITTa III-THE COSMOPOLITAN THEORY Two theories of jurisdiction over crime dominate our law. The first is the territorial theory.- According to this theory the matter of prime importance is the determination of the place where the offense was committed. The courts of the territory within which the offender committed his offense have jurisdiction over that offense. Courts out- side of that territory had no power to try the offender or to take cog- nizance of the offense in any way. The place where the "gist" of the offense occurred fixed the locus of the crime. The gist of the offense was deemed to be that element of the offense without which the offense could not be said to exist. Sometimes the gist of the offense was looked upon as the act which was done, as in the case of homicide, where the act of shooting was the gist of the offense.
    [Show full text]
  • Baker V. Carr (1962)
    Baker v. Carr (1962) Baker v. Carr (1962) Argued: April 19–21, 1961 Re-argued: October 9, 1961 Decided: March 26, 1962 Background In the U.S. each state is responsible for determining its legislative districts. For many decades states drew districts however they wanted. By the 1950s and 1960s, questions arose about whether the states’ division of voting districts was fair. Many states had not changed their district lines in decades. During that time many people moved from rural areas to cities. As a result, a significant number of legislative districts became uneven—for example, a rural district with 500 people and an urban district with 5,000 people each would have only one representative in the state legislature. Some voters filed lawsuits to address the inequities, but federal courts deferred to state laws and would not hear these cases. Federal courts did not hear these cases because they were thought to be “political” matters. Courts were reluctant to interfere when another branch of government (the executive or legislative) made a decision on an issue that was assigned to it by the Constitution. For example, if the president negotiated a treaty with another country (a power granted to the president by the Constitution), the courts would generally not decide a case questioning the legality of the treaty. The power of state legislatures to create voting districts was one of those “political questions” that the courts traditionally had avoided. This is a case about whether federal courts could rule on the way states draw their state boundaries for the purpose of electing members of the state legislature.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases Frank Wilson Knapp Cornell Law School
    Cornell Law Library Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository Historical Theses and Dissertations Collection Historical Cornell Law School 1893 Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases Frank Wilson Knapp Cornell Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/historical_theses Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Knapp, Frank Wilson, "Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases" (1893). Historical Theses and Dissertations Collection. Paper 215. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Historical Cornell Law School at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Historical Theses and Dissertations Collection by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. J URI SD I C TI 0N I N CRI MI N ATL CASES . Soo0oo----- G R A D U A T I N G THESIS OF----- FRANK W I L S 0 N KNAPP oo0oo---- CLASS OF ' 9 3 . CO0R NFlLb U N I V E R S I T Y LAW SCHOOL JURISDICTION IN CR IM I NAb CASES. The question of criminal jurisdiction is one of growing importance from the fact that a citizen of our State can be seriously affected in his property rights, or even have his life put in jeopardy, by the act of another living, a thousand miles away, and in any one of fifty or mare sover- eignties. If a citizen of the United States is killed by an explosive compound sent by a citizen of Russia with an intent to work that result in this country, it is a question of im- portance in which country the guilty offender shall be punish- ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Representing Yourself and Your Business in Magistrate Court
    REPRESENTING YOURSELF AND YOUR BUSINESS IN MAGISTRATE COURT I. INTRODUCTION Business is rife with conflict. To succeed, a business owner must be adept at resolving these disputes quickly and efficiently. Sometimes, more that a simple phone call, refund or apology is needed. Some disputes must be resolved in court. The American civil judicial system is designed to resolve disputes. Although the process works well, it is expensive and time consuming, sometimes taking several years and costing tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. For many smaller disputes, the time and cost associated with a traditional lawsuit makes litigation in these forums impractical. Mediation or arbitration are sometimes good options, but only if your adversary is of a similar mindset. There is an alternative. Georgia’s Magistrate Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, hearing civil claims involving disputes of $15,000 and less. It is often described as “Small Claims Court.” With the right judge, it might be more aptly called a “Court of Common Sense.” The rules of procedure and evidence are relaxed. There is no jury. In the State and Superior Courts of Georgia, a corporation must by law be represented by an attorney. This is not true for Magistrate Court, where a business may be represented by an employee or owner. In short, Magistrate Court provides a forum in which it is often possible to secure justice quickly and inexpensively for smaller disputes. The purpose of this article is to provide a basic roadmap for representing yourself and your business successfully in Magistrate Court. II. PROS AND CONS There are advantages and disadvantages to trying your case in Magistrate Court as opposed to the slower and more expensive State and Superior Courts of Georgia.
    [Show full text]
  • Baker V. Carr in Context: 1946-1964
    BAKER V. CARR IN CONTEXT: 1946-1964 Stephen Ansolabehere and Samuel Issacharoff1 Introduction Occasionally in all walks of life, law included, there are breakthroughs that have the quality of truth revealed. Not only do such ideas have overwhelming force, but they alter the world in which they operate. In the wake of such breakthroughs, it is difficult to imagine what existed before. Such is the American conception of constitutional democracy before and after the “Reapportionment Revolution” of the 1960s. Although legislative redistricting today is not without its riddle of problems, it is difficult to imagine so bizarre an apportionment scheme as the way legislative power was rationed out in Tennessee, the setting for Baker v. Carr. Tennessee apportioned power through, in Justice Clark’s words, “a crazy quilt without rational basis.”2 Indeed, forty years after Baker, with “one person, one vote” a fundamental principle of our democracy, it may be hard to imagine what all the constitutional fuss was about. Yet the decision in Baker, which had striking immediate impact, marked a profound transformation in American democracy. The man who presided over this transformation, Chief Justice Earl Warren, called Baker “the most important case of [his] tenure on the Court.”3 Perhaps the simplest way to understand the problem is to imagine the role of the legislator faced with the command to reapportion legislative districts after each decennial Census. Shifts in population mean that new areas of a state are likely to emerge as the dominant forces of a legislature. But what if the power to stem the tide were as simple as refusing to reapportion? It happened at the national level when Congress, realizing that the swelling tide of immigrant and industrial workers had moved power to the Northeast and the Midwest, simply refused to reapportion after the 1920 Census.
    [Show full text]
  • The Magistrate Court in New Mexico
    The Magistrate Court In New Mexico Magistrate Courts: There are 41 magistrate courts, 8 circuit (satellite) courts and 66 magistrate judges in the New Mexico state judicial system. These are courts of limited jurisdiction. They may hold jury trials. Magistrate courts will hear the following case types: traffic violations including DWI/DUI; misdemeanors; civil issues from $0-$10,000; felony preliminary hearings; and county and city ordinance violations. The State Magistrate Court System The magistrate court system was adopted by a state constitutional amendment in 1966 following an eight year study of the court system.1 The magistrate court system replaced the justice of the peace courts. Magistrate judges are elected officials who serve a four-year term.2 They operate under the direction and control of the New Mexico Supreme Court, with the Administrative Office of the Courts providing administrative support.3 The magistrate court is a full-time court of limited jurisdiction and has jurisdiction over matters only as provided by law.4 Magistrate courts are not courts of record, which means the court is not required to keep a record of trial proceedings (i.e., a recorded transcript of the trial).5 Parties aggrieved by any judgement of the magistrate court may appeal to district court within fifteen days after the judgement is rendered to request a trial de novo (new trial).6 Case Types Heard in Magistrate Court Traffic Offense: a violation of the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Code article 66. Petty Misdemeanor: an offense which carries a possible fine up to $500 and/or up to six months imprisonment.
    [Show full text]
  • Equity in the American Courts and in the World Court: Does the End Justify the Means?
    EQUITY IN THE AMERICAN COURTS AND IN THE WORLD COURT: DOES THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS? I. INTRODUCTION Equity, as a legal concept, has enjoyed sustained acceptance by lawyers throughout history. It has been present in the law of ancient civilizations' and continues to exist in modem legal systems.2 But equity is no longer a concept confined exclusively to local or national adjudication. Today, equity shows itself to be a vital part of international law.' The International Court of Justice--"the most visible, and perhaps hegemonic, tribunal in the sphere of public international law" 4-has made a significant contribution to the delimitation,5 development of equity. Particularly in cases involving maritime 6 equity has frequently been applied by the Court to adjudicate disputes. Equity is prominent in national legal systems and has become increas- ingly important in international law. It is useful, perhaps essential, for the international lawyer to have a proper understanding of it. Yet the meaning of equity remains elusive. "A lawyer asked to define 'equity' will not have an easy time of it; the defimition of equity, let alone the term's application in the field of international law, is notoriously uncertain, though its use is rife."7 Through a comparative analysis, this note seeks to provide a more precise understanding of the legal concept of equity as it relates to two distinct systems oflaw: the American and the international. To compare the equity administered by the American courts with that administered by the World Court, this note 1. See sources cited infra notes 10, 22.
    [Show full text]
  • State Constitutions and the Basic Structure Doctrine Manoj Mate, Whittier Law School
    Whittier College From the SelectedWorks of Manoj S. Mate 2014 State Constitutions and the Basic Structure Doctrine Manoj Mate, Whittier Law School Available at: https://works.bepress.com/manojmate/4/ COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE Manoj Mate, Ph.D., J.D. Reprinted from Columbia Human Rights Law Review Vol. 45, No. 2 Winter 2014 COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW Vol. 45, No. 2 Winter 2014 EDITORIAL BOARD 2013–2014 Editor-in-Chief Ashley Starr Kinseth Executive Editor JLM Editor-in-Chief Edward Kim Alejandro Ortega Journal Executive Executive JLM Executive Submissions Editor Production and Managing Editor Nathiya Nagendra Managing Director Katherine Park Alexander Zbrozek Journal Executive JLM Executive Articles Notes Editor Director of Staff and Editor Zahreen Ghaznavi Alumni Development Michelle Luo Dinah Manning Journal Notes and JLM Executive State Submissions Editors Supplements Editor Brian Civale Aretha Chakraborti Max Hirsch Caroline Stover Executive SJLM Editor Eduardo Gonzalez Journal Articles Editors JLM Articles Editors Beatrice Franklin Rachel Burkhart Mickey Hubbard Meagan Burrows Tamara Livshiz David Hirsch Ian MacDougall Mark Singer Sara Nies Alyssa White Sarah Saadoun Heejeong Won Journal Managing JLM Managing Editors Editors JoAnn Kintz Diane Chan Jarrell Mitchell Johanna Hudgens Corinna Provey Benjamin Menker Dina Wegh COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW Vol. 45, No. 2 Winter 2014 STAFF EDITORS Mitra Anoushiravani Joseph Guzman Patrick Ryan Nieri Avanessian Whitney Hayes
    [Show full text]
  • Form, Function, and Justiciability Anthony J
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2007 Form, Function, and Justiciability Anthony J. Bellia Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Other Law Commons Recommended Citation Anthony J. Bellia, Form, Function, and Justiciability, 86 Tex. L. Rev. See Also 1 (2007-2008). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/828 This Response or Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Form, Function, and Justiciability Anthony J. Bellia Jr.* In A Theory of Justiciability,' Professor Jonathan Siegel provides an insightful functional analysis of justiciability doctrines. He well demonstrates that justiciability doctrines are ill suited to serve certain purposes-for example, ensuring that litigants have adverse interests in disputes that federal courts hear. Professor Siegel proceeds to identify what he believes to be one plausible purpose of justiciability doctrines: to enable Congress to decide when individuals with "abstract" (or "undifferentiated") 2 injuries may use federal courts to require that federal law be enforced. Ultimately, he rejects this justification because (1) congressional power to create justiciability where it would not otherwise exist proves that justiciability is not a real limit on federal judicial power, and (2) Congress should not have authority to determine when constitutional provisions are judicially enforceable because Congress could thereby control enforcement of constitutional limitations on its own authority.
    [Show full text]
  • WHICH COURT IS BINDING?1 Binding Vs
    WHICH COURT IS BINDING?1 Binding vs. Persuasive Cases © 2017 The Writing Center at GULC. All rights reserved. You have found the perfect case: the facts are similar to yours and the law is on point. But does the court before which you are practicing (or, in law school, the jurisdiction to which you have been assigned) have to follow the case? Stare decisis is the common law principle that requires courts to follow precedents set by other courts. Under stare decisis, courts are obliged to follow some precedents, but not others. Because of the many layers of our federal system, it can be difficult to figure out which decisions bind a given court. This handout is designed to help you determine which decisions are mandatory and which are persuasive on the court before which you are practicing. Binding versus Persuasive Authority: What’s the Difference? • Binding authority, also referred to as mandatory authority, refers to cases, statutes, or regulations that a court must follow because they bind the court. • Persuasive authority refers to cases, statutes, or regulations that the court may follow but does not have to follow. To get started, ask yourself two questions: 1) Are the legal issues in your case governed by state or federal law? and 2) Which court are you in? Once you know the answers to these questions, you are well on your way to determining whether a decision is mandatory or persuasive. Step 1: Are the Legal Issues in Your Case Governed by Federal or State Law? First, a lawyer needs to know the facts and issues of the case.
    [Show full text]