CHAPTER 2
THE COURT SYSTEMS
THE COURT SYSTEMS—The federal court system was created by the Constitution, which
specifies Supreme Court and “inferior Courts” Congress chooses to establish. The three level
court system has existed for many years. Judges in the U.S. are typically attorneys by training.
Judges serve three basic functions in the legal system: 1) Provides decisions in resolving disputes
among society members; 2) Assists the efforts of the parties to take the full benefits from our
adversarial system of justice; and 3) Uphold the dignity of the law and the legal system.
Federal Judges—Under the U.S. Constitution, federal judges are guaranteed lifetime tenure
“during good behavior.” Impeachment is rare, but under the control of the Senate.
Add. Case: Nixon v. U.S. (S. Ct., 1993). Background: Nixon, a federal district court judge, was
convicted of making false statements before a federal grand jury and sentenced to prison.
Because Nixon refused to resign from office, he continued to collect his salary while in prison. A
Senate committee collected testimony, presented findings to the Senate, which impeached Nixon.
He sought declaratory judgment that the Senate’s failure to allow a full evidentiary hearing
before the entire Senate violated its constitutional duty to try all impeachments. The court
granted the government’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the claim was nonjusticiable.
Nixon appealed. After the court of appeals affirmed, he petitioned for certiorari review.
Decision: The Court held that the Senate had sole discretion to choose impeachment procedures
and, thus, controversy was a nonjusticiable political question. “In the case before us, there is no
separate provision of the Constitution which could be defeated by allowing the Senate final
authority to determine the meaning of the word ‘try’ in the Impeachment Trial Clause. We agree
with Nixon that courts possess power to review either legislative or executive action that
transgresses identifiable textual limits. As we have made clear, ‘whether the action of (either the
Legislative or Executive Branch) exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a
delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate
interpreter of the Constitution.’ But we conclude, after exercising that delicate responsibility, that
the word ‘try’ in the Impeachment Clause does not provide an identifiable textual limit on the
authority which is committed to the Senate.”
State Judges—Are chosen by a variety of methods: elected, appointed, and by various mixtures
of the former two methods.
Judicial Immunity—Under established doctrine, a judge is absolutely immune from suit for
damages for judicial acts taken within or even in excess of their jurisdiction.
CASE: Davis v. West (Ct. App., Tx.)—Attorney Davis never paid Houston Reporting Service
(HRS) for court reporter service provided. HRS sued. Davis did not defend; HRS won default
judgment and tried to collect. Radoff appointed as receiver; sent demand letter to Davis’ bank; it
paid. Davis sued Radoff for abuse of process. Trial court granted summary judgment for Radoff
as entitled to judicial immunity. Davis appealed.
Decision: Affirmed. “A person entitled to derived judicial immunity receives the same absolute
Questions: 1. Why did Radoff ask for, and get, $4,144.91 when the amount owed was $1,083.98?
Remember that the judgment for HRS was for $1,083.98, the rest of the amount is for attorney’s
2. Do you think Davis could have a cause of action against her bank for giving her money to
Radoff without her permission?
She did sue the bank for that. The court held that the bank properly froze her account and
transferred the funds to Radoff. “A financial institution that complies with an order to turn over
Add. Case: Murphy v. Maine (D. Maine, 2006) Background: Murphy sued various Maine state judges in federal
court, contending they violated her First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and rights under
the Maine constitution. The judges moved to dismiss the suit.
Decision: Motion granted. Judges performing judicial acts within their jurisdiction are entitled
to absolute immunity from civil liability. This applies even when the judge is accused of acting
maliciously and corruptly. This principle does not exist to protect malicious or corrupt judges
Organization of the Court System—American system consists of the federal and state court
systems. Both have courts of original and appellate jurisdiction. In trial courts, one judge
presides; a jury may sit to determine the facts and outcome of dispute in civil and criminal cases.
Appellate courts focus on correcting errors in application of law and proper procedure at trial.
THE FEDERAL COURTS—The degree of independence of federal judges is quite unique. In
most countries they are civil servants subject to much more control.
Federal District Courts—Courts of original jurisdiction in the federal system; the only court in
the federal system to use juries. Each state has at least one federal court; 94 districts in total with
670 judges.
Add. Info: Three judge panels—Usually, one judge presides over a case in district court, but
statute requires a three-judge panel in some matters. Certain cases under the Civil Rights, Voting
Rights, and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Acts require panels. Under the Supreme
Court Selections Act, the statutes that require three-judge panels at the district court level are
the only cases that have a right of appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court (directly from the district
courts).
Federal Appellate Courts—Federal district court decisions are reviewable in the U.S. courts of
appeals. There are 11 regional circuit courts of appeals, plus one in Washington, D.C. Limited to
appellate jurisdiction, these courts usually assign three-judge panels to review decisions of the
district courts.
Add. Case: Ritter v. Ross (7th Cir., 1993). Background: The Ritters bought land that was later
sold by the county because they failed to pay property taxes. Despite being notified, they failed to
respond. They asserted their inaction was because they were “unsophisticated in legal matters.”
The Ritters filed an action in federal district court against the county arguing (1) that they were
not properly notified and (2) that the action was an unjust taking because the county kept all
proceeds from the sale ($18,000 more than the taxes). The court dismissed the action on the
grounds that state remedies had not been exhausted and that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction. The Ritters appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Decision: Affirmed. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine bars litigation of the dispute in federal
court. The doctrine is based on Supreme Court ruling in Rooker (1923). It stands for the
proposition that lower federal courts lack jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of
state-court determinations. Lower federal courts may not review a decision reached or that
Specialized Federal Courts—The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is most prominent
court with special jurisdiction. Its subject matter jurisdiction is limited to intellectual property
cases (patents, trademarks and copyrights), cases in which the government is sued, and appeals
for certain federal courts with special jurisdiction. There is also the U.S. Court of International
Trade hears customs matters. U.S. Tax Court hears appeals from the IRS.
U.S. Supreme Court—Established by the Constitution; the highest court of appeal. It also has
original jurisdiction in certain cases, such as disputes between two states. The Court issues a writ
of certiorari when it agrees to accept an appeal.
Add. Info: Writ of Certiorari; Why Cases Are Not Accepted for Review. In Maryland v.
Baltimore Radio Show, the Supreme Court refused to issue a writ of certiorari, explaining:
“The sole significance of such denial of a petition for writ of certiorari …. simply means that
fewer than four members of the Court deemed it desirable to review a decision of the lower court
as a matter ‘of sound judicial discretion.’ A variety of considerations underlie denials of the writ,
and as to the same petition different reasons may lead different Justices to the same result. This
is especially true of petitions for review on writ of certiorari to a State court. Narrowly technical
reasons may lead to denials. Review may be sought too late; the judgment of the lower court may
not be final; it may not be the judgment of a State court of last resort; the decision may be
supportable as a matter of State law, not subject to review by this Court, even though the State
court also passed on issues of federal law. A decision may satisfy all these technical
requirements and yet may commend itself for review to fewer than four members of the Court.
Pertinent considerations of judicial policy here come into play. A case may raise an important
question but the record may be cloudy. It may be desirable to have different aspects of an issue
further illumined by the lower courts. Wise adjudication has its own time for ripening. …It
becomes necessary to say that denial of this petition carries no support whatever for concluding
that either the majority or the dissent in the court below correctly interpreted the scope of our
decisions. It does not carry any implication that either, or neither, opinion below correctly
applied those decisions to the facts in the case at bar.”
International Perspective: The French Court System
A major difference between the French and U.S. courts is in the authority of the French Supreme
Court (cour de cessation) to review appeals from the appellate court (cour d’appel). It has
authority to reject the appeal, in which case the proceedings are finished. Or it can hear and
invalidate the decision and return it to the cour d’appel for reconsideration—although the cour
d’appel need not follow the supreme court’s determination of the law (as it would in the U.S.).
After reconsideration, if the decision is appealed to the supreme court, a panel of 25 judges hears
the case. Again, the appeal can be rejected or invalidated and returned to the cour d’appel for
reconsideration. This time the cour d’appel must follow the supreme court’s determination of the
law.
THE STATE COURTS—Key features of state court systems are much alike in all states,
involving more than one level and having similar jurisdiction authority.
State Courts of Original Jurisdiction—The courts of original jurisdiction include courts of
general and limited or special jurisdiction. Trial courts have different names in different states
(district court, superior court, supreme court, etc.). The courts with limited or special jurisdiction
include municipal courts (for cases not meeting the state’s amount-in-controversy requirements
for its district courts), justice of the peace courts, probate courts, and small claims courts.
State Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction—All states have at least one court of appellate
jurisdiction but many have two levels of appellate courts. A party normally has a right of appeal
to at least one appellate court. A party seeking review from the highest state court may seek
review from the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is rarely granted.
Add. Info: Appeals—If an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court involves only a matter a state law
the state courts are supreme and no appeal is permitted. But, the Court hears appeals in cases
where a state’s highest court has found a federal law invalid or has upheld a state law that is
challenged as violating federal law or the Constitution. The Supreme Court grants review at its
discretion. In Michigan v. Long the Court explained: “When … a state court decision … appears
to rest primarily on federal law, … and when the adequacy and independence of any possible
state law ground is not clear from the face of the opinion, we will accept as the most reasonable
explanation that the state court decided the case the way it did because it believed that federal
law required it to do so.” The “independent” and “adequate” requirements are distinct. A
state-law ground may be adequate, but if it is not clear that it is independent of federal-law
grounds, the Supreme Court may accept jurisdiction. The rule means that “state courts be left
free and unfettered … interpreting their state constitutions … (but) that ambiguous or obscure
adjudications by state courts do not” bar the Court from determining whether state action
violates the federal constitution.
Add. Info: Small Claims—Businesses have lobbied state legislatures to expand the jurisdiction
of small claims courts. Low limits leaves companies in a difficult position. Many claims are too
large for small claims but too small to justify the expense and delays associated with the regular
courts. The Wall Street Journal reports: “Empire Wholesale Lumber Company … writes off as
much as $500,000 in unpaid bills annually because the amounts in question exceed Ohio’s
$2,000 limit on small claims cases … the company’s president … believes some customers buy his
product fully intending not to pay, because they know the … company will not take them to court.
‘We’re caught in the crossfire of judicial system that’s not taking care of us.’”
Add. Case: Acuna v. Gunderson Chev. (Ct. App., Cal., 1993). Background: Acuna filed a small
claims action against Gunderson seeking damages of $5,000 and was awarded $3,500.
Gunderson appealed according to the California Small Claims Act and a trial de novo was set in
superior court. Acuna then filed a counter-claim against Gunderson for breach of contract,
fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment. Acuna requested that superior court transfer the
small claims action and consolidate it with the new action filed and that the small claims order
be dismissed without prejudice because the appeal by Gunderson vacated the small claims
decision. The request was denied for lack of jurisdiction; Acuna appealed.
Decision: Affirmed. The Small Claims Act provides a forum in which minor civil disputes can be
resolved quickly and inexpensively. A plaintiff who files an action in small claims court has no
right to appeal. If the defendant appeals, with the exception that attorneys may participate, the
hearing is to be conducted in the same way as the original hearing. Thus, the court noted that if
Rules of Civil Procedure—Plaintiff files suit; defendant responds. Most courts have adopted the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to govern procedural aspects—pleadings, discovery, and trial
procedure.
JURISDICTION—The literal meaning of the term is “the power to speak of the law.” It defines
court limits and it is generally established by statute or Constitution. The plaintiff must select a
court with 1) subject matter jurisdiction and 2) jurisdiction over the person or property of the
defendant.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction—Subject matter jurisdiction is a statutory limitation on the types
of disputes a court may hear, such as only suits involving more than $2,000.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction in the Federal Courts—As dictated by the Constitution, federal
subject matter jurisdiction is limited to cases involving a federal question and cases involving
diversity of citizenship, where $75,000 or more is in controversy requirement.
Add. Case: Terrebonne Homecare v. SMA Health Plan (5th Cir., 2001)—THI a home health
care agency, sued TGMC in Louisiana state court contending that it conspired with an HMO to
terminate THI as a provider and to favor the HMO. THI asserted this was a violation of
Louisiana antitrust and unfair competition laws. TGMC removed the case to federal court. The
federal district court refused to remand the case to state court on the grounds that the state
antitrust claims were actually federal in nature because they involved interstate commerce. The
court held that THI had artfully pleaded its complaint to avoid a necessary federal question, so
the federal court had jurisdiction. THI appealed.
Decision: Vacated and remanded. “The well-pleaded complaint rule governs whether a
defendant can remove a case based on the existence of a federal question. Under the
well-pleaded complaint rule, ‘federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is
Add. Info: Class Action Suits and Diversity. In a class action suit brought on behalf of a large
group (for example, all college football fans in the United States), only the citizenship of the
representative of the class is used to determine the existence of diversity.
Personal Jurisdiction—After the plaintiff has selected the appropriate court on the basis of
subject matter, she must determine if that court may exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. In
personam jurisdiction is generally established through service of process (summons), notifying
the defendant, usually in person, of the suit that has been filed. If there is no response, there is a
default judgment.
Add. Case: Alston v. Advanced Brands and Importing Co. (6th Cir., 2007)—In federal courts
in Michigan and in Ohio, the parents of children sued makers of alcoholic beverages, claiming
their advertising is responsible for the illegal (underage) purchase of alcoholic beverages by
children and that their children have been subjected to defendant’s advertising campaigns. They
sought to recover money spent on alcoholic beverages by children and sought an injunction
against further advertising. The trial courts dismissed the suits; the plaintiffs appealed. The
appeals were consolidated into one action for consideration.
Decision: The parents of the children have no viable remedy against the beverage makers. Hence, they failed to
establish standing. Illegal sales of alcoholic beverages to children may create a cause of action against the retailer,
Add. Case: Brown v. Thaler (Sup. Ct., Maine, 2005)–Brown sued Thaler and mailed him the summons and
complaint by certified mail. Maine law states that service may be made: “By mailing a copy of the summons and of
the complaint (by first-class mail, postage prepaid) to the person to be served, together with two copies of a notice
and acknowledgment form and a return envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the sender. If no acknowledgment
of service … is received by the sender within 20 days after the date of mailing, service of the summons and
complaint shall be made [by personal service].” Brown’s mailing did not include an acknowledgment and Thaler
did not reply. Brown requested default judgment from the court, claiming that Thaler did not respond to service.
Brown was granted judgment, but it was vacated when Thaler protested that he had not been served. The court
dismissed Brown’s suit. Brown appealed.
Decision: Affirmed. Service by mail without an acknowledgment is not proper service. It means that the other party
Add. Case: Gilbreath v. Brewster (Sup. Ct., Va., 1995)–Brewster sued Gilbreath for injuries
incurred in a car accident. Thirteen months after the case was filed Gilbreath was served.
Gilbreath moved to have the case dismissed because it violated Rule 3.3 that service must be
made within 12 months. Trial court found that Brewster had not exercised due diligence in trying
to effect service but granted Brewster’s request to dismiss the suit without prejudice. Gilbreath
appealed, contending that dismissal should have been with prejudice.
Decision: Reversed for Gilbreath. “A dismissal with prejudice generally is ‘as conclusive of the
rights of the parties as if the suit had been prosecuted to a final disposition adverse to the
plaintiff,’ and it not only terminated the particular action, ‘but also the right of action upon
International Perspectives: London’s Commercial Court
A 10-judge court formed 100 years ago, it only takes commercial matters; handled by one judge,
no juries. Most cases are finished in less than a year from filing; loser pays. Respected for
accuracy, many foreign parties are willing to submit cases there.
Jurisdiction over Out-of-State Defendants—Defendant must be within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court to be served. Out-of-state defendants can be served if they are served in
the state or if they can be reached by a long-arm-statute. Focus on the state in which the firm is
incorporated, the state in which the firm has its headquarters or main plant; and the state in which
the firm does business.
Add. Case: Clearwater Artesian Well v. LaGrandeur (Sup. Ct., Maine, 2007)–Clearwater, a NH corporation, sued
LaGrandeur in state court in Maine to recover $2,850, which it claimed she owed for a well pump installed on her
property. LaGrandeur contended the suit should be set aside because Clearwater, a foreign corporation, was not
licensed to do business in Maine. Clearwater responded that it needed no particular authority to transact business
in Maine. The district court held that suit could proceed. LaGrandeur appealed.
Decision: Affirmed. Maine law holds that a “foreign corporation may not transact business in this State until the
foreign corporation files an application for authority to transact business with the Secretary of State.” The statute
Add. Info: Consent—A defendant who would not be subject to a court’s jurisdiction can consent
to jurisdiction. California Statutes.: “A state has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction over a
competent individual who has consented to the exercise of such jurisdiction.” Jurisdiction must
be exercised in conformity with the terms of consent. Consent may be expressed by words or by
conduct and may given for a particular action before or after it is brought. Consent may be
given by contract either waiving service of process or authorizing extra-territorial service of
process; by a power of attorney to confess judgment, unless such confessions are illegal in the
state; by an acknowledgment of “due service;” by a contractual provision for arbitration by a
state arbitration board; or by the designation of an agent to receive process. Examples are: the
non-resident motorist and mail order insurer situation; a general appearance; and a plaintiff’s
submission to jurisdiction on a defendant’s counterclaim or cross-complaint. The consent of a
party is effective to give a state jurisdiction over his person; it cannot enlarge the competency of
the court to include another case which a court has not been authorized to hear or a case
involving either a greater or lesser amount in controversy.
Add. Info: Appearance. Regardless of the ability of a court to exercise jurisdiction, the
defendant automatically submits to the court’s personal jurisdiction if he makes an appearance.
If a person brings a lawsuit before a court—is a plaintiff—the court has jurisdiction over the
person for other matters. If as a defendant, a person files a motion to dismiss, an answer to
plaintiff’s complaint, or other court papers he has made an appearance. Thus, a person must
contest jurisdiction before taking any other action that might be interpreted as an appearance.
Cyberlaw: The Long Arm of the Internet—Jurisdiction over firms that do business on the
Internet have the same principles as traditional business. Mere Internet advertisement is not
enough; there must be actual doing business in another state for there to be jurisdiction in that
state.
Jurisdiction over Out-of-State Corporate Defendants—Usually, a corporation may be served in
the:
1. State of incorporation;
2. State in which headquarters are located; and,
3. Corporation is doing business in the state. This requires that the corporation have “minimum
contacts” with the state.
ISSUE SPOTTER: Can Your Firm Be Reached?
Because the Florida firm directly solicited clients in New York, it fell under New York long-arm
jurisdiction. To make it even stronger, New York, as other states, regulates real estate agents. One
must have a New York realtor license to be in the business of soliciting real estate clients. The
Florida business did not have a license to solicit customers in New York, which created another
ground for long-arm jurisdiction by New York courts.
CASE: Blimka v. My Web Wholesalers (S.Ct., Id.)—Blimka, in Idaho, bought a large quantity
of distressed jeans from My Web, a Maine company. When 16,000 of the 26,500 pair ordered
arrived, Blimka complained about the quality. My Web said tough. Blimka sued in Idaho state
court and won a default judgment. My Web appealed that Idaho courts did not have jurisdiction.
Decision: My Web’s actions were sufficient to subject the firm to Idaho jurisdiction for purposes
Questions: 1. The Idaho high court held that Idaho courts did have jurisdiction over an
out-of-state seller who misrepresented goods sold over the internet. Does this mean most
internet-based sellers are subject to jurisdiction in every state where they do business?
Yes, if they do active business. The standard is the same as it is for traditional businesses. Once a
2. Why did My Web not move the case from Idaho state court to federal court?
The case was probably for less than $75,000, since the money paid was about $21,000. Even
allowing for lost profits Blimka may have earned by resale, it would be unlikely to be enough for
Add. Case: World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson (S. Ct., 1980)–On a road trip, the Robinsons
suffering injuries in an accident in Oklahoma involving an Audi they bought in New York. They
sued Audi, the importer, and the New York dealer (World-Wide VW) in state court in Oklahoma.
World-Wide contested the right of the court (Judge Woodson) to exert jurisdiction over it, as it
did no business in Oklahoma. The OK courts asserted jurisdiction existed; World-Wide
appealed.
Decision: World-Wide had no contacts in Oklahoma as its business was limited to selling cars in
the east. Minimum contacts were not established in OK just by the fact that one of the cars the
company sold ended up in OK. For there to be minimum contacts to make a business subject to
the laws and jurisdiction of a state, there must be intent to do business in the state. Even if a firm
Add. Case: Digi-Tel Holdings v. Proteq Telecommunications (8th Cir., 1996)–After several
meetings in Singapore, Digi-Tel ordered 240,000 cellular phones from Proteq, a Singapore
company. The contract said that Minnesota law would govern and called for the phones to be
delivered to Digi-Tel in Singapore (F.O.B. Singapore). The phones were not ready on time and
Digi-Tel sued Proteq in federal court in Minn. under its long-arm statute. The district court
dismissed the case, holding that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Proteq. Digi-Tel
appealed.
Decision: Affirmed. Proteq had no business in Minnesota. Its representatives never entered the
state; all business was done in Singapore and the goods were delivered there. The long-arm
statute tests were not met. Letters, faxes, and shipment of samples from Singapore to MN were
Add. Info: Jurisdiction over corporations—In addition to the ways listed in the text, according
to the California Statutes Annotated: A state has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction over a
corporation on one or more of the following bases:
(1) Incorporation in the state;
(2) Consent;
(3) Appointment of agent;
(4) Appearance in an action;
(5) Doing business in the state;
(6) Doing an act in the state;
(7) Causing an effect in the state by an act elsewhere;
(8) Ownership, use or possession of thing in the state;
(9) Other relationships to the state which make the exercise of judicial jurisdiction reasonable.
Calif. Statutes defines “doing business” as: “A state has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction
over a nonresident individual who does business in the state with respect to cause of action
arising out of that business. A state has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction over a nonresident
individual who has done business in the state, but has ceased to do business there at the time
when the action is commenced, with respect to causes of action arising out of that business. A
state has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction over a nonresident individual who does business
in the state with respect to causes of action that do not arise from the business done in the state if
this business is so continuous and substantial as to make the exercise of such jurisdiction
reasonable. …Doing business is doing a series of similar acts for the purpose of thereby
realizing pecuniary profit, or otherwise accomplishing an object, or doing a single act for such
purpose with the intention of thereby initiating a series of such acts. It is immaterial whether a
state has power to prevent a nonresident from doing business within its territory, or to regulate
such business, or whether the business involves interstate commerce. The question in each case
is whether an individual has a sufficient relationship to the state arising out of such business that
makes it reasonable for the state to exercise judicial jurisdiction over the individual as to the
particular cause of action.”
Add. Case: Hollinger v. Sifers (Ct. App., Mo., 2003–Hollinger saw Sifers, a doctor, being
interviewed on TV. Sifers practiced in Kansas City, Kansas. Hollinger lived in Missouri. She
visited Sifers in his office and he performed surgery on her. After problems arose, she sued Sifers
in state court in Missouri. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction over Sifers. Hollinger
appealed.
Decision: Affirmed. Sifers offers his services only in Kansas. He did not advertise for patients
from Missouri; he was simply seen on TV discussing medicine by a Missouri resident who went
Add. Case: Trustees of Columbia University v. Ocean World, S.A. (Ct. App., Fla.,
2009)--Ocean World (OW), a foreign corporation, operates Ocean World Adventure Park in the
Dominican Republic (DR). It contracted with Briggs to buy 12 dolphins from Japan for delivery
in the DR. The DR denied a permit to import the dolphins. OW sued various defendants for
intentional interference with a contract or business relationship. Among the defendants was
Columbia University of NY. Suit was filed in Florida, contending that Columbia was “doing
business” in FL through its alumni association, interactive internet classrooms, and a website
providing online courses for students to obtain degrees and professional certificates. Columbia
also owns property in FL. OW contends that Columbia encouraged the DR to refuse to allow the
dolphins to be imported, which was interference with a business relationship. Reiss and
Columbia moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction in FL courts. The trial court refused that
motion. They appealed.
Decision: Reversed. Florida courts do not have jurisdiction over the defendants. None of the
alleged tortious acts occurred in FL, as would be required for personal jurisdiction. The facts
that Columbia has alumni associations in FL and offers internet lectures and owns property in
Jurisdiction over Property—When the court is unable to obtain jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant, it has limited authority to establish jurisdiction based on the existence of the
defendant’s property in the state. In Rem Jurisdiction—When the defendant’s property is the
subject of the dispute, the court in the area in which that property is located will have the
jurisdiction to resolve all claims against that property. It will not matter if the defendant is
present.