In United States law, federal-question jurisdiction is the subject-matter jurisdiction of United States federal courts to hear
a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the United States Constitution, federal law, or a treaty to which the United States is a party.
Article III of the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear such cases, so long as the United States Congress passes a statute to that effect.
However, when Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the newly created federal courts to hear such cases,
it initially chose not to allow the lower federal courts to possess federal question jurisdiction for fear that it would make the courts too powerful.
The Federalists briefly created such jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1801, but it was repealed the following year, and not restored until 1875.
The statute is now found at 28 U.S.C. § 1331: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions
arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
Unlike diversity jurisdiction, which is based on the parties coming from different states, federal question jurisdiction
no longer has any amount in controversy requirement—Congress eliminated this
requirement in actions against the United States in 1976, and in all federal question cases in 1980.
Therefore, a federal court can hear a federal question case even if no money is sought by the plaintiff.
To meet the requirement of a case "arising under" federal law, the federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff's complaint.
There has been considerable dispute over what constitutes a "federal question" in these circumstances,
But it is now settled law that the plaintiff cannot seek the jurisdiction of a federal court merely because
it anticipates that the defendant is going to raise a defense based on the Constitution, or on a federal statute.
This "well-pleaded complaint" rule has been criticized by legal scholars, but Congress has so far
chosen not to change the law, although the Supreme Court has made clear it is free to do so.
Amount in controversy (sometimes called jurisdictional amount) is a term used in United States
civil procedure to denote the amount at stake in a lawsuit, in particular in connection with a
requirement that persons seeking to bring a lawsuit in a particular court must be suing for a certain minimum amount before that court may hear the case.
Where a single plaintiff has multiple unrelated claims against a single defendant, that plaintiff can aggregate those claims -
that is, add the amounts together - to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.
In cases involving more than one defendant, a plaintiff may aggregate the amount claimed against multiple defendants
“only if the defendants are jointly liable.” Middle Tennessee News Co., Inc. v.
Charnel of Cincinnati, Inc., 250 F.3d 1077, 1081 (7th Cir. 2001).
However, “if the defendants are severally liable, plaintiff must satisfy the amount in controversy requirement against each individual defendant.”
The recent 5-4 decision in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005),
held that a federal court has supplemental jurisdiction over claims of other plaintiffs who do not meet
the jurisdictional amount for a diversity action, when at least one plaintiff in the action does satisfy the jurisdictional amount.
The standard for dismissing a complaint for lack of meeting the amount in controversy is a rather high one in federal court.
In 1938, Justice Owen Roberts set forth the "legal-certainty test", which is still used today:
It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.
The inability of plaintiff to recover an amount adequate to give the court jurisdiction does not show his bad faith or oust the jurisdiction.
Nor does the fact that the complaint discloses the existence of a valid defense to the claim.
But if, from the face of the pleadings, it is apparent to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount claimed or if,
from the proofs, the court is satisfied to a like certainty that the
plaintiff never was entitled to recover that amount, and that his claim was therefore colorable for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction, the suit will be dismissed.
The validity of the amount of damages claimed is considered a threshold issue of law for a judge to decide at the commencement of the case.
The legal certainty test is often heavily litigated in personal injury or wrongful death cases,
in the situation where they are removed by a defendant to federal court on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction, and then the plaintiff moves to remand to state court.
Since the 1970s, many states have prohibited plaintiffs in such cases from demanding a specific amount of money in the ad damnum section of their complaints,
Because of serious problems with unscrupulous attorneys gaining undue publicity by simply demanding outrageous and unrealistic damage amounts like $1 trillion.
Therefore, many such complaints cannot and do not state an amount in controversy on their face,
Which puts defendants in the awkward position of having to submit evidence to the federal court that plaintiffs could theoretically recover $75,000,
while simultaneously maintaining that plaintiffs
are not entitled to anything at all.
Each state has the power to set its own amount in controversy requirements for its own courts,
but every state must offer some outlet for citizens to sue for violations of their rights, even if they
are seeking no money.
Most states have several levels of trial courts, with different amount-in-controversy requirements
which must be met to gain access to higher levels of courts. For example, in the state of Virginia,
the lowest level of court, the Virginia General District Court has
exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases where the amount in controversy is $4,500 or less,
And shares authority with the Virginia Circuit Court to try cases involving sums above $4,500 and up to $25,000.
The Virginia Circuit Court, in turn, has exclusive jurisdiction where the amount in
controversy is greater than $25,000.
A few states like California have felt that it is more efficient to unify all trial courts so that judges and support staff can be more easily reassigned where needed.
However, in California, nearly all lawsuits involving an amount in controversy below $25,000 are classified as
"limited civil actions," which are subject to special simplified procedural rules intended
to hold down litigation costs.
A court order is an official proclamation by a judge (or panel of judges) that defines the legal relationships between the parties to a hearing,
a trial, an appeal or other court proceedings. Such ruling
requires or authorizes the carrying out of certain steps by one or more parties to a case.
A court order must be signed by a judge; some jurisdiction may require it to be notarized.
The content and provisions of a court order depend on the type of proceeding, the phase of the proceedings in which they are issued,
and the procedural and evidentiary rules that govern the
proceedings.
An order can be as simple as setting a date for trial or as complex as restructuring contractual relationships by and
between many corporations in a multi-jurisdictional dispute. It may be a final
order (one that concludes the court action), or an interim order (one during the action).
Most orders are written, and are signed by the judge. Some orders, however, are spoken orally by the judge in open court,
and are only reduced to writing in the transcript of the proceedings.
A transcript is a written record of spoken language. In court proceedings, a transcript is usually a record of all decisions of the judge,
and the spoken arguments by the litigants' lawyers. A related
term used in the United States is docket, not a full transcript.
The transcript is expected to be an exact and unedited record of every spoken word, with each speaker indicated.
Such a record was originally made by court stenographers who used a form of
shorthand abbreviation to write as quickly as people spoke.
Today, most court reporters use a specialized machine with a phonetic key system, typing a key or key combination for every sound a person utters.
Many courts worldwide have now begun to use
digital recording systems.
The recordings are archived and are sent to court reporters or transcribers only when a transcript is requested.
Many US transcripts are indexed by Deposition Source so that they may be searched by legal professionals via the Internet.
Transcripts may be available publicly or to a restricted group of persons;
a fee may be charged.
Transcripts may also be produced digitally. Transcripts produced by a digital reporter are often more accurate than those produced by a court stenographer.
A transcript is also any written record of a speech, debate or discussion.
Rush transcripts are transcript requests that can be processed and mailed, or picked up, within short time of the request
(usually 24 hours or less), provided there are no extenuating circumstances
(such as unpaid bills).
These expedited transcripts normally cost much more than regular transcripts.
Check against delivery
Sometimes, the first page of a transcript will have the words "Check Against Delivery" stamped across it,
which means that the transcript is not the legal representation of the speech, but rather
only the audio delivery is regarded as the official record.
This is better explained in the French version of the message – Seul le texte prononcé fait foi, literally "Only the spoken text is faithful".
Conversely, it may be that the actual given speech differs from the way the speaker intended,
or that it contains extra information that is not pertinent to the central points of the speech and that
the speaker does not want to be left as a permanent record.
No comments:
Post a Comment