1. THE COURT SYSTEMS
Chapter 2

2. Organization of the Court Systems
Both state and federal court systems have
Lower courts: Courts of Original Jurisdiction
Where disputes are initially brought and tried
Generally known as trial courts
Look at issues of fact
Appellate Courts: Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction
Where lower court decisions are reviewed
Look at issues of law

3. Federal and State Judges
Federal Judges
Federal judges are nominated by the President
Confirmed by a majority vote in US Senate
Lifetime appointment
May be removed from office only if Congress impeaches them (intricate impeachment process and rarely happens)
Job security guarantees that judges are independent and free from political pressure
State Judges
Judges chosen by variety of methods
Unlike federal court, most state judges serve fixed terms
Bias? Evidence indicates that for elected judges the average judgment in tort cases are larger and out-of-state companies are treated more poorly than in states with appointed judges.

4. Judicial Immunity A judge is absolutely
Immune from suit for damages for judicial acts taken within his/her jurisdiction.
Applies even if action is excessive/malicious
Purpose: Judges are not concerned with the relative power parties who appear in court.
Purpose: To protect the system from undue influence on judicial decision-making
See Davis v. West

5. Davis v. West
Houston Reporting Service (HRS) provided court reporting services for attorney Davis who failed to pay HRS. It sued for $ (deposition fee), plus attorney’s fees, interest, costs.
Davis did not defend – judge entered a default judgment
HRS began collection efforts
Court appointed Radoff as receiver in the case
Issued an order commanding Radoff to take possession of “all . . monies in deposit [by Davis] in financial institutions ”
Radoff sent letter to attorney asking for payment.
Radofff sent letter to Davis’s bank demanding that the bank turn over $4, to Radoff. Bank did.
Judgment satisfied; HRS was paid; receivership closed.
Davis sued Radoff for abuse of process
Trial court granted summary judgment for Radoff, as he was entitled to derived judicial immunity. Davis appealed. (Continued)

6. Davis v. West, cont.
Held: Affirmed. Radoff is cloaked with derived judicial immunity
Derived judicial immunity by a person is same as absolute immunity for judges.
Judicial immunity can attach to certain non-judges when judges delegate their authority, appointing another to perform services for the court (as an “officer of the court”).
Texas uses the “functional approach”– Looks “whether the person seeking immunity is intimately associated with the judicial process
Also “that person exercises discretionary judgment comparable to that of the judge
Functional approach focuses on nature of the job performed & if persons’ conduct is like delegating judge.
Radoff is “cloaked with derived judicial immunity”
Every action “good or bad, honest or dishonest, well-intentioned or not” is immune as applied to the judicial function undertaken

7. The Federal Court System
Federal District Court
Courts of original jurisdiction
Use juries or judge as “trier of fact”
Trial courts deal in issues of fact
Federal trial courts also use judicial officers called “magistrates”
94 federal districts in the court system
US Court of Appeals
12 courts
Usual rule: There is the right to appeal to this court
3 judge panels deal in issues of law and review most decisions
En banc proceeding means all active judges in a circuit will a hear a case
Specialized Federal Courts
Limited jurisdiction
I.e. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit--takes appeals from
U.S. District Court in patent, trademark and copyright cases
U.S. Court of Federal Claims
U.S. Court of International Trade
U.S. Tax Court
See Exhibit 2.2

8. The U.S. Supreme Court Highest court in the country
Appellate review court
Cases usually heard by 9 justices
Term begins First Monday in October in Washington, D.C.
Reviews cases from
US District Courts
US Courts of Appeals
Highest Courts of the States
Review is through Writ of Certiorari
Often deals with Constitutional decisions
If writ not granted, lower court decision is final

9. The Typical State Court System
State court of “Original Jurisdiction”
Where case is first brought; deals in issues of fact
Usually called District Court (but in NY, is called the “Supreme Court”)
State court of Appellate Jurisdiction
Deals with appeals and issues of law
Usually called Court of Appeals
Can have different names (District Court of Appeals in FL; Appellate Division in NY
State Supreme Court
Second appellate review dealing w/ issues of law if state has intermediate appeals court

10. Rules of Civil Procedure (In United States Code, Title 28)
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Govern procedural aspects of litigation
Pleadings
Discovery
Trial procedures
Relevant motions
States are free to develop their own procedural rules
Most adopt the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or rules very similar to them
See “Test Yourself”, p. 36

11. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Federal Courts
Federal court jurisdiction is derived from the US Constitution
Federal courts may hear cases involving a federal questions
Cases in which the US is a party to the suit
Cases involving citizens of different states
Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction
Amount in Controversy is more than $75,000
No $ amount for cases involving federal law

12. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction: Right of a court to hear & decide the case
A number of courts may have jurisdiction over a given case
Need jurisdiction over the subject matter
Need jurisdiction over either persons or property
If jurisdiction is lacking, judgment is null & void

13. Subject Matter Jurisdiction State Courts
A particular court resolves a particular subject matter:
Wills & Trusts: Probate Court
Divorces, Child Custody: Domestic Court
Municipal Matters: Municipal Court
Small Claims Court - Limited claims of usually $5000 or less, sometimes up to $7,500 will be heard
If there is not a particular subject matter, case goes to general trial court
Courts of original jurisdiction--where case is first brought
Courts of appellate jurisdiction--where lower court decisions are reviewed
If there is no jury, judge decides the facts
General right to appeal to at least one higher court

14. Personal Jurisdiction In Personam Jurisdiction
Over the person, usually through
Summons through service of process or substituted service
Residency
Doing business in the state
Submission to the jurisdiction
See Exhibit 2.4
Out of state defendants
Jurisdiction is more difficult
Serve them while in the state
May not “trick” them to get into the state for service of process

15. Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Business Defendants
Long-arm Statutes
Aimed at non-resident businesses
Protects states’ citizens from business defendants who do business in the state and then leave the state
See Exhibit 2.5 re: Long-Arm Statute

16. Territorial Jurisdiction “Minimum Contacts”
Sales/branch office is “transacting business” within the state
Landmark case--International Shoe Company v. Washington ( Supreme Court, 1945)
Legal contact -- legal “nexus”
Examples of “minimum contacts” in a state:
Sales representative(s)
Selling product
Advertising
Placing product in specific markets
See Blimka v. My Web Wholesaler, LLC
See “Can Your Firm Be Reached?”

17. Blimka v. My Web Wholesaler, LLC
My Web Wholesalers (of Maine) does business on the Internet.
Blimka (of Idaho) surfed the net, found My Web and called DePalma, a My Web manager.
Ordered 26,500 pairs of jeans for $20,935 and wired money.
Shipment of 16,000 jeans arrived. Blimka called My Web to complain about quality. No satisfaction.
Blimka sued My Web and DePalma for fraud in Idaho court. Process was served on them in Maine.
No response by defendants; court issued a judgment against both, holding it had jurisdiction. They appealed.
HELD: Affirmed. Idaho court has jurisdiction. Defendants’ actions invoked the use of the Idaho long-arm statute.
Defendants’ purposeful false misrepresentation directed into Idaho created minimum contacts with Idaho that does not offend 14th Amendment “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”.
Blimka awarded attorney fees and costs.

18. Jurisdiction Based On Power Over Property
In rem jurisdiction
The dispute between the parties is over property
Where property is located creates jurisdiction
Whether the defendant-property owner is within the jurisdiction does not matter
Tangible property creates in rem jurisdiction--i.e. real estate, personal property
Intangible property creates in rem--i.e. bank accounts, stocks
If property is removed to another state, no in rem jurisdiction
Quasi in rem jurisdiction
Defendant’s property is attached to pay for unrelated matter
Ownership of property within the state is basis of jurisdiction
Decision in quasi in rem binds the parties themselves
Property can be either real estate or personal
Property can be either tangible or intangible

19. Exclusive Jurisdiction (Over certain cases
Exclusive Jurisdiction (Over certain cases. In other disputes jurisdiction may be either in federal or state court systems.)
State courts have exclusive jurisdiction over some matters
Examples:
Divorce
Adoption
Matters controlled by state government
Supremacy of federal law—state jurisdiction cannot infringe on federal jurisdiction
Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over some matters
Examples:
Federal crimes
Bankruptcy
Patents
Copyrights
Federal questions
Congress can specify by statute exclusive jurisdiction in federal courts

20. Concurrent Jurisdiction
Federal and state courts have exclusive jurisdiction over some matters; however,
Sometimes both state & federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction
Then plaintiff may bring suit in either court system
If plaintiff chooses state court, defendant has right to remove to federal court (right of removal in diversity of citizenship cases)
If plaintiff files suit in defendant’s home state court, defendant cannot move case to federal court.

21. ***Applying Appropriate Law in Federal Court
Issue: When there is diversity of citizenship, which substantive law should the federal court apply?
Ex: Smith & Jones have contract dispute; Smith is from Arizona; Jones from California. Which law applies?
See Erie v. Tompkins

22. Erie RR Co. v. Tompkins (1938) Which Law Applies?
Protruding object from train injures Tompkins
Tompkins--PA citizen
Erie--incorporated in NY
Accident--in PA
If federal common law applies: Erie is liable
If PA common law: Tompkins trespassed & Erie is not liable
Held: Concept of federal common law in diversity of citizenship cases is ended. Courts will apply state law.
PA law applies. Tompkins is a trespasser. Erie is not liable.

23. Applying Appropriate Law in State Court
Incidents of the case take place in more than one state
Conflict of laws or choice of law rules apply
Rules vary according to nature of dispute, i.e.
Contract cases: Laws of state in which contract was made will be applied
Tort cases: Laws of state where tort takes place
States try to look at interests of the parties, gov’t, policies
General rule: Laws apply for state that has the most “significant interest”
See Williamson Pounder Architects v. Tunica County, Miss.

24. Williamson Pounder Architects PC v. Tunica County, Miss.
Tunica County hired Williamson, a Tennessee company, to design a park.
County employees decided park job should expand from $18 to $22 million.
Orally approved by County Administrator.
Later, Williamson billed County for extra work.
County Board of Supervisors refuse to pay—they did not authorize extra work by a vote as required by state law.
Williamson sues for breach of contract in federal court—diversity of citizenship.
Contract states that Tennessee law would apply (choice-of-law clause).
County claims Mississippi law applies as state law requires state contracts to be under state law.
Federal district court agrees with County and dismisses suit.
Williamson appeals to federal appeals court. It affirms.
In Mississippi the “center of gravity” of a case is most important to determine jurisdiction. In Mississippi, oral contracts cannot be formed or enforced against counties.
Mississippi public policy controls; Tennessee law (which would likely produce opposite result) does not apply.

25. Venue
Doctrine of forum non conveniens - a special venue doctrine: Either party may request a change of venue to a more convenient court that could hear the case. Court will consider such issues as
Where actions of case take place
Where witnesses are located
Unfair burdens to parties
Venue: Appropriate geographical location of the court that has jurisdiction
In controversial or well-publicized cases, defendants will ask for change of venue