Subject Matter Jurisdiction

(redirected from Subject-matter jurisdiction)
Also found in: Wikipedia.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The power of a court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong.

For a court to have authority to adjudicate a dispute, it must have jurisdiction over the parties and over the type of legal issues in dispute. The first type of jurisdiction is called Personal Jurisdiction; the other is subject matter jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction will be found if the persons involved in the litigation are present in the state or are legal residents of the state in which the lawsuit has been filed, or if the transaction in question has a substantial connection to the state.Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the nature of the claim or controversy. The subject matter may be a criminal infringement, Medical Malpractice, or the probating of an estate. Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear particular types of cases. In state court systems, statutes that create different courts generally set boundaries on their subject matter jurisdiction. One state court or another has subject matter jurisdiction of any controversy that can be heard in courts of that state. Some courts specialize in a particular area of the law, such as probate law, Family Law, or Juvenile Law. A person who seeks custody of a child, for example, must go to a court that has authority in guardianship matters. A Divorce can be granted only in a court designated to hear matrimonial cases. A person charged with a felony cannot be tried in a criminal court authorized to hear only misdemeanor cases.

In addition to the legal issue in dispute, the subject matter jurisdiction of a court may be determined by the monetary value of the dispute—the dollar amount in controversy. Small claims courts, also known as conciliation courts, are limited by state statutes to small amounts of money in controversy, ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 depending upon the state. Therefore, if a plaintiff sues a defendant in Small Claims Court for $50,000, the court will reject the lawsuit because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy. The amount in controversy limitations are designed to regulate the flow of litigation in the various courts of the state, ensuring that complicated disputes over large sums of money will be heard in courts that have the time and resources to hear such cases.

The U.S. Constitution gives jurisdiction over some types of cases to federal courts only. Cases involving Ambassadors and Consuls or public ministers, admiralty and maritime cases, and cases in which the United States is a party must be heard in federal courts. Congress has also created subject matter jurisdiction by statute, mandating that antitrust suits, most Securities lawsuits, Bankruptcy proceedings, and patent and Copyright cases be heard in federal courts.

The Constitution also allows federal district courts to hear cases involving any rights or obligations that arise from the Constitution or other federal law. This is called federal question jurisdiction. Federal courts also have diversity jurisdiction, which gives the courts authority to hear cases involving disputes among citizens of different states. If, however, the amount in controversy is less than $10,000, federal question and diversity jurisdiction will not apply, and the case must be brought in state court. Even if the $10,000 amount is satisfied, a plaintiff may start the lawsuit in state court. A defendant, however, may seek to have the case moved to the federal court in that state by filing a transfer request called a removal action.

A defendant who believes that a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case may raise this issue before the trial court or in an appeal from the judgment. If a defect in subject matter jurisdiction is found, the judgment will usually be rendered void, having no legal force or binding effect.

References in periodicals archive ?
NOTEREF _Ref256116482 \h \* MERGEFORMAT) The foremost confusion exists in regards to whether the purpose of the FTAIA is to establish federal court subject-matter jurisdiction over a foreign antitrust controversy or to provide the elements required for establishing a claim.
Subject-matter jurisdiction, by contrast, 'refers to a tribunal's power to hear a case.
It covers an introduction, and material on subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and service of process, venues, sources of law, pleading, joinder of claims and of parties.
This form of review provides a tantalizing option for a DJ plaintiff who has subject-matter jurisdiction removed from its case via a CNS.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit rejected Chevedden's argument that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, held that "Section 14(a) creates a private right of action to enforce SEC regulations controlling the conditions under which proxies are submitted," and explained that KBR properly filed suit against Chevedden because "The choice between accommodating a potential adverse litigate at substantial expense or taking action that would expose oneself to a suit creates a justiciable dispute" under the Declaratory Judgment Act.
For example, if the manager of the Kagnew Station post exchange embezzled funds, or if a military spouse killed her husband at Kagnew Station, no court would have had subject-matter jurisdiction over the offenses.
As for subject-matter jurisdiction, the judge noted that an assignee only has standing if the interest in the past infringement was expressly included in the assignment.
174) Nidal Nabil Jurdi, The Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, 5 J.
In recent weeks, AMHCA has been meeting with Republican members who sit on the Ways and Means Committee or the Energy and Commerce Committee, the two House committees with subject-matter jurisdiction over Medicare legislation.
The court noted that a plaintiff bears the initial burden to plead facts that establish subject-matter jurisdiction.
Ankara Chief Prosecutor's Office may take up the investigation or decide for lack of jurisdiction and/or lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.