1. THE COURT SYSTEMS
Chapter 2

2. Chapter Issues Overview of the Saudi and American court system
How an injured party can seek relief in the courts
Jurisdiction: Which court has the power and the authority to decide the case?

3. Organization of the Court Systems
Saudi court systems was created by King Abdul Aziz in 1932.
Court systems have
- Administrative tribunals
Disputes on modern regulations
General Sharia courts: Courts of Original Jurisdiction
Where disputes are initially brought and tried
Generally known as trial courts
Summary Sharia Courts:
Where lower court decisions are reviewed

4. The Sharia Court System
Courts of original jurisdiction
Judges and lawyers form part of the ulema.
Trial courts deal in issues of fact
General courts and summary courts
Deals with simple cases.
Cases adjudicated by single judges
3 judge panels deal in issues of criminal cases
Appellate courts
- sit in Mecca and Riyadh and review decisions for compliance with Sharia.
Committees – non sharia govt tribunals – forgery/bribery/commercial and labour law.

5. Judges Judges are called Qadis.
Passes judgements based on legal opinions from muftis, concerned members of ulema.
Lifetime appointment
Judiciary proper( body of Qadis) have about 700 Qadis.
Job security guarantees that judges are independent and free from political pressure

6. Judges
Judges
Judges hold a post-graduate qualification from an Islamic university recognized by the Saudi government generally the Institute of Higher Judiciary in Riyadh.
Judges chosen by variety of methods
Judges serve fixed terms

7. US 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

8. 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
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
Specialized Federal Courts
Limited jurisdiction
I.e., Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit--takes appeals from
US District Court in patent, trademark and copyright cases
US Claims Court
US Court of International Trade
Administrative rules of US Patent & Trademark Office

9. 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

10. The Typical State Court System of US
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
Usually called Supreme Court (but in NY, is called “Court of Appeals”)

11. The Federal Court System The US Supreme Court
Highest court in the country
Appellate review court
Cases usually heard by 9 justices
Reviews cases from
US District Courts
US Courts of Appeals
Highest Courts of the States
Review is through Writ of Certiorari
If writ not granted, lower court decision is final

12. “The French Court System” (International Perspective)
France is a civil law country (typical of Europe)
Written (code) law used rather than judge-made law
Court System
Cour de Cessation (Supreme Court)
Cour d’appel (Court of Appeals)
Tribunal d’Instance (Court of general jurisdiction)
Appellate process in France is very different from US
Cour de Cessation: no authority to create judgments
Cour de Cessation: rejects an appeal or invalidates the decision & returns case to Cour d’appel for reconsideration

13. “London’s Commercial Court”
In international contracts, parties can state how future disputes will be resolved either in the contract or when disputes arise
The Commercial Court in London is a popular forum:
Trials handled by one judge
No jury
Trials usually occur within 1 year of dispute
Finished rather quickly
Loser pays winner’s attorney’s fees
English courts are respected; judgment more likely to be enforced in other countries
Remedies have been innovative & relevant to commercial matters

14. 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

15. 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 first 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

16. 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 for more than $75,000
No $ amount for cases involving federal law

17. 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
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

18. 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( leave from this slide onwards)

19. Cyberlaw: “The Long Arm of the Internet”
When does a web site advertiser in nationwide sales become subject to another state’s jurisdiction?
Generally personal jurisdiction occurs when defendant is engaged in business in a state.
i.e. Amazon.com does active business in every state by selling online, and is subject jurisdiction in those states
No jurisdiction if contact with a forum is “only informational”, even if the web site is interactive
No jurisdiction if web site only gives information about sales, allows customers to download forms, and provides address for inquiries
Unclear: How much activity must occur with residents in a state for the web seller to be subject to jurisdiction in the buyer’s state?
Ex: One low cost item is not “active business”, esp. if buyer initiates the contact.
Ex: One spam sent out of state – no jurisdiction

20. Territorial Jurisdiction “Minimum Contacts”
Sales office “transacting business” within the state
Landmark case--International Shoe Company v. Washington ( Supreme Court, 1945)
Legal contact -- legal “nexus”
Examples of “minimum contacts” within a state
Sales representative(s)
Selling product
Advertising
Placing product in specific markets

21. 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 defendants, saying it had jurisdiction. They appealed.

22. Blimka v. My Web Wholesaler, LLC
HELD: Affirmed. Idaho court has jurisdiction.
Defendants’ actions of fraud 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.

23. 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

24. 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
General rule: Laws apply for state that has the most “significant interest”
See Miller v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation

25. Miller v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation
Pilgrim’s Pride (PP) hired Simmons Mill to build a bin on a feed mill at PP facility in Arkansas. No written agreement.
Applewhite, a Simmons employee, killed when a roof he was working on at the PP facility collapsed under him.
Simmons, a Texas company, fulfilled obligations to Applewhite’s heirs under Texas workers’ compensation laws.
Heirs of Applewhite (Miller), sued PP, claiming negligence by PP caused Applewhite’s death.
PP provided out-of-court settlement for Miller to end the claim.
PP then sued Simmons in federal district court of Arkansas to seek indemnification for money PP paid to Miller.
Simmons asked court to dismiss the PP lawsuit.

26. Miller v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp.
District court held that Texas law should govern PP’s claim, and that Texas law prohibits indemnification unless a written agreement required one party to indemnify another. This was not the case here.
District Court applied the five-factor balancing test (Leflar’s approach) adopted by Arkansas Supreme Court in determining which law would apply in this case.
District Court dismissed PP’s claim. PP appealed saying Arkansas law, not Texas law, should govern.

27. Miller v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp.
HELD: Arkansas has not discarded the lex loci delicti (the law of the place of the wrong) rule.
However, must look at lex loci delicti with the Leflar 5-factors test:
Predictability of result (does not weigh heavily in this case)
Maintenance of interstate and international order (not at issue here)
Simplification of the judicial task (not at issue here)
Advancement of the forum’s governmental interest (This is important to protect a state’s interest of its residents .)
--Applewhite was a resident of Texas and compensated under Texas compensation law.
--If Applewhite had been an Arkansas resident, then Arkansas law might apply to the workers compensation scheme. But he wasn’t. There is no state interest in applying Arkansas law to the Texas workers compensation scheme.
5. Application of the better rule of law (aimed at avoiding application of unfair or archaic laws; this does not occur if Texas law applies.)
Affirmed. Texas law should govern the case.

28. 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