Unit 3 courts discussion responses 1. According to Admin (2015), two of court jurisdictions within the American Court system consists of the Exclusive Jur
Unit 3 courts discussion responses 1. According to Admin (2015), two of court jurisdictions within the American Court system consists of the Exclusive Jurisdiction. In the exclusive jurisdiction, a federal court hears cases that are deemed federal court only matters because it has been determined that federal courts only have the authority to hear the particular case. State jurisdictions are unable to hear any cases that are under exclusive jurisdiction. Another jurisdiction is the Original Jurisdiction. In Original Jurisdiction is determined that either a state or federal court can hear the cases as long as it was the first court to hear the case. Appellate Jurisdiction is another court jurisdiction that can only hears matters that is on appeal.Two types of jurisdictions that exist are state and superior courts. The State courts have jurisdiction over civil matters. The civil matters that the state oversee consists of matter involving claims and lawsuits that are brought about to redress a private wrong such as a breach of contract, encroachment, negligence and injury. In civil matters, plaintiffs generally seek monetary compensation for damages the defendant(s) caused. It is important to note that within the state court system there are different levels of courts that have jurisdiction over lawsuits involving different amounts of money. Another court jurisdiction is the Superior Courts, also known as the District or County Courts in many states. The Superior Court generally handle lawsuits involving larger amounts of money, family law, probate, guardianships and conservatorships. In regards to whether there a possibility that concurrent jurisdiction could exist, I feel that this could be the case state and superior matters because both cases can oversee civil matters. Although state courts are unable to hear civil cases with larger amounts of money, they can in fact hear cases with smaller amounts while superior courts don’t have a limit on the monetary amount. Both jurisdictions having the ability to hear civil matters is beneficial because this could reduce the wait time for cases to be heard and can ensure that the victim is awarded a fair settlement amount for their pain and suffering.
2. One type of jurisdiction would be Exclusive jurisdiction. Meaning that only that specific court can hear that case. For example in the case of bankruptcy it goes to bankruptcy court with exclusive matter about that jurisdiction. A person can only file a bankruptcy action in a federal bankruptcy court, state courts have no jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases. Another definition would be where only this one court has the power to adjudicate a case to the exclusion of all other courts. One other jurisdiction would be appellate jurisdiction meaning that the power for a higher court has the ability to review a lower courts decision. This kind of jurisdiction exists for both civil and criminal law. In a case like this the party that appealed the lower court’s decision is called the appellate and the other party is the appellee. I do not think there is a possibility that concurrent jurisdiction could exist because that would mean all courts have the power to hear that case. For example a state court of general jurisdiction might have concurrent jurisdiction with specialized courts in the same state such as family courts or small claims courts. In some cases this does work out like in juvenile cases they aither get tried in adult court or in juvenile court and the prosecutor decides where that case will be held. Concurrent jurisdiction sometimes occurs outside of the juvenile justice context as well. For example, if both a federal and a state court could try the same offense, it is said that each has concurrent jurisdiction. I think it would be fair in juvenile cases because there are certain crimes that can be punishable at the adult level so there should be concurrent jurisdiction allowed there but also I think it would be fair and just for them to have concurrent jurisdiction given the type of case depending if it can be tried at the federal level from state level or another number of variables I like to hear that the option is there for the court system.
3. Two types of jurisdictions in the American Court System could the the Original Jurisdiction and the Appellate Jurisdiction. Original Jurisdiction is the first court that gets to hear and review a case. Appellate Jurisdiction is the power to get a higher level court to look over a lower level court’s decision on the case (ABA 2019). While the Original Jurisdiction would hear smaller circumstances such as offenses to town or city limits, the Appellate Jurisdiction would take over larger matters involving the District Courts. Concurrent Jurisdiction would exist when two courts, or more, from different structures have the same jurisdiction over the same exact case. This could happen over specific crimes with both federal and state courts. For larger offenses, the offender may be tried in a state court, and tried in a federal court, as the offense was a federal level offense, happening within a state’s lines. In regards to my choices, if the offense was of a federal level, it would be too big to be heard in the smallest level court, therefore making it only available to the federal level court. If the offense was at such a federal level, it would go right past the Appellate Court, as there was no lower level decision to be made or reviewed. Regardless of how this could or could not affect the Jurisdictions chosen, I think the Concurrent Jurisdiction may be needed in some high-level offending cases. It could be fair to both the state court and the federal court, as they are both seeking justice, if they are both capable of doing so.
4. When a court has exclusive jurisdiction, it can adjudicate a case independently of any other court. Cases of a certain type are decided only by it. The subject matter the court deals with is what determines whether exclusive jurisdiction applies. A U.S. district court on bankruptcy matters, for example, has exclusive jurisdiction. Constitutional authorities, statutes, or contracts grant exclusive jurisdiction to courts within a territory. However, concurrent jurisdiction arises when two or more courts have jurisdiction over the same matter. Appellate jurisdiction is the power of a higher court to hear appeals from a lower court. Higher courts can review decisions and change the outcome of decisions made by lower courts. Appellate jurisdiction within the federal judiciary is shared by the circuit courts and the supreme court. In cases where the higher court has appellate jurisdiction, the higher court simply examines the ruling of the lower court to see whether any errors were made in applying the law. No, I do not think that concurrent jurisdiction can exist between exclusive and appellate jurisdiction because exclusive jurisdiction cases can only be heard in federal courts and if there are civil cases they can be heard in courts where appellate jurisdiction applies as opposed to exclusive jurisdiction in criminal cases that are exclusively heard in federal court.
5. Subject matter jurisdiction is when a court can decide whether or not an issue is of great concern in regard to a specific subject matter. This jurisdiction gives courts the power over certain legal matters or disagreements. And example of this would be a matter of bankruptcy, bankruptcy court would have jurisdiction; drug related crimes would be held in drug court because they have the power of jurisdiction. General jurisdiction, is more so apart of state courts and this jurisdiction allows the court to hear many issues or controversies that don’t go against state law. The cases that are involved and are under this jurisdiction are generally ones that involve people of the state and incidents that have happened within the state. These cases are not of a specific legal matter in which another court would have jurisdiction. The difference between the two is that general jurisdiction has the power to rule over any dispute in which a specific court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. There should not be concurrent jurisdiction in regards to these 2 jurisdictions because general jurisdiction only has power over cases that are not under the jurisdiction of specifics courts under subject matter jurisdiction. Because of this there should be no concurrent power involved or stepping on any toes.I believe this is fair because there are courts that are more equipped to handle specific crimes and disputes. These courts have a staff that is trained and experienced in these types of issues and therefore can provide more help and a better understanding on the subject matter compared to a general court. subject matter jurisdiction provides authority in disputes and cases that require a specific prior knowledge rather that a general jurisdiction.