Jurisdiction in Lehmann Assignment

Added on - 16 Sep 2019

  • 3

    pages

  • 1190

    words

  • 83

    views

  • 0

    downloads

Showing pages 1 to 1 of 3 pages
JURISDICTIONJurisdiction in Lehmann terms can be defined as the official power of courts to make and enforcelegal judgments and decisions for the welfare of society and human beings. They may beclassified as subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction (Subject matter jurisdiction,2017). The former corresponds to the process of hearing only a particular type of case related tothe single domain for e.g. traffic courts, juvenile courts, etc. whereas the latter means the powerand authority of the court to make/enforce a judgment against a particular defendant confinedwithin its territory. The parties engaged in the litigation process may waive personal jurisdiction,but they cannot waive subject matter jurisdiction as dismissing subject matter jurisdiction isconsidered as malpractice and may raise questions regarding the justice being served atcourtrooms.Requirements for Personal jurisdiction (Pennoyer, 2008):-It is very important to initiate the process of personal jurisdiction, as they may be waived off. Itrequires consent- the process of personal jurisdiction cannot be initiated by any third party and isconfined to the jurisdiction where the event has occurred. The place of jurisdiction is decided onthe basis, where the defendant can be served or where the parties have mutually decided toresolve the case (Payne, 2013). The second requirement is power, in which the court hasauthority to exercise personal jurisdiction despite being challenged by the defendant (Pennoyer,1877). Lastly, Notice- it is the time given to defendant which is reasonably calculated to makeaware regarding the action affecting him.Types of Personal jurisdiction: -1)In personam- in this type of personal jurisdiction, a lawsuit is specifically enforcedagainst a person for seeking a judgment and can affect individual rights and interests andsubstantially all of the property. E.g. McDonald v. Mabee,243 U.S.90,91(1917).Cf.Michigan Trust Co. v. Ferry,228 U.S. 346(1913). The rule has beenstrongly criticized but persists. Ehrenzweig,the Transient Rule of Personal Jurisdiction:The 'Power' Myth and Forum Conveniens, 65 YALEL. J. 289 (1956). But in Burnham v.Superior Court,495 U.S. 604(1990), the Court held that service of process on anonresident physically present within the state satisfies due process regardless of theduration or purpose of the nonresident's visit.
desklib-logo
You’re reading a preview
card-image

To View Complete Document

Become a Desklib Library Member.
Subscribe to our plans

Unlock This Document