Cuda gave a good general definition of jurisdiction as a concept.
Courts can only hear cases where there is both personal jurisdiction (over the parties) and subject matter jurisdiction (over the claims).
Non-exclusive jurisdiction is where more than one court may have subject matter jurisdiction. This may be two courts in different physical regions, or two different court systems (state or federal) in the same area. Technically, this is called concurrent jurisdiction, as opposed to exclusive jurisdiction.
For example, let's say a person was standing on one side of a state line holding a gun, and intentionally shot at someone on the other side of the state line who died. Each state would be able to prosecute the shooter. That would be an example of concurrent jurisdiction.
Or there is a contract dispute between two businesses in neighboring states. Contract disputes are normally resolved under state laws, so subject matter jurisdiction would in state court. Either state court could be used, as long as that court could also get personal jurisdiction over the parties.
However, if both company were located in different states, and the dispute was for a large amount in controversy (currently defined by law as over $75K), then the court could also be heard in federal court under diversity rules for subject matter jurisdiction.
The opposite is exclusive jurisdiction. For example, under federal law, copyright infringement claims can only be heard in federal court because the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over these disputes. Bankruptcy cases can only be heard in federal bankruptcy courts, again because of exclusive jurisdiction.
Similar concepts occur at the state level. Some states have special courts for resolving landlord-tenant issues, and those kind of claims can only be heard in the landlord-tenant courts because those courts have exclusive jurisdiction.
Generally, exclusive jurisdiction is established as a matter of law, and non-exclusive jurisdiction is what happens the remainder of the time.
2006-07-04 03:42:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Exclusive Jurisdiction Definition
2016-10-02 10:46:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
This Site Might Help You.
RE:
meaning of non-exclucsive jurisdiction?
2015-08-16 07:42:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
jurisdiction is the scope of the courts powers to examine and determine the facts, interpret and apply the law, make orders and declare judgement. it may be limited by geographic area, type of parties or relief sought. i should imagine that when jurisdiction is not exclusive as in disputes between people from different countries the jurisdiction is not exclusive as proceedings may be instigated in either country and can be contested as it which is the most appropriate venue for the dispute to be resolved
2006-07-04 00:14:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by cuda c 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
For the most part if you are a non practicing religious person, say Catholic, then just because you no longer believe or go to church doesnt mean you automatically become an atheist. You tend to change into maybe just a theist with no religious affiliation or an agnostic or maybe even an atheist (even if you dont admit it) but in title you are a non practicing Catholic. If you are a non practicing atheist then you may no longer hold to the beliefs (or lack of beliefs) that an actual atheist might hold to, but in title still call yourself an atheist. I think the terms, in the case of non practicing, are all just about the titles we call ourselves and not really about what we actually believe. Humans like to label and categorize things and people.
2016-03-13 06:38:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋