Question

The goal of Chapter 2 is to give students an understanding of which courts have power to hear what disputes and when. Hence, the first major concept introduced in this chapter is jurisdiction. Jurisdiction generally involves 3 components: subject matter; territory; and person(s). Take for instance a city court like 36th District Court in Detroit.

By statute, 36th District Court has jurisdiction over landlord/tenant disputes, civil cases, subject to dollar limitations, garnishments, misdemeanor trials, felony arraignments, and traffic cases, among other things. These items comprise the court's subject matter jurisdiction.

Since 36th District Court is situated within the city of Detroit, incidents that occur within the city of Detroit, falling within the court's subject matter jurisdiction, give the court territorial jurisdiction.

Individuals who reside within the city of Detroit can be sued in 36th District if the matter falls within the court's subject matter jurisdiction, and individuals who commit offenses, e.g., traffic offenses, in the city fall within the court's jurisdiction. This is jurisdiction over the person(s), i.e., the defendant.

Careful attention in this chapter is given to the requirements for federal jurisdiction and to which cases reach the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). It might be emphasized at this point that the federal courts are not necessarily superior to the state courts. The federal system is simply an independent system authorized by the Constitution to handle matters of particular federal interest.

This chapter also covers alternatives to litigation that can be as binding to the parties involved as a court's decree. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), including online dispute resolution, is another major topic discussed.

Discussion: In this age of the Internet, when people communicate via e-mail, texts, tweets, Facebook, and Skype, is the concept of jurisdiction losing its meaning?

Answer 1

In this age of the Internet, when people communicate via e-mail, tweets, Facebook, and Skype, is the concept of jurisdiction losing its meaning?

In the opinion of the majority, it is the fact that the concept of jurisdiction losing is its meaning. There is no longer any significant meaning to the concept of finding out jurisdiction on the basis of physical locations of individuals and organizations. I fact with the passing of time, these kinds of contracts are nowadays formed with the help of online communications. There is no relevance to the fact that one of the parties has the physical presences or the location of the e-mail server or Web page server is also irrelevant.

           

Opposite to this, in the event of some kind of conflicts among the various parties, it is still important to decide the jurisdiction. Slowly but surely with the passage of time, a number of rules and regulations along with the guidelines are being laid down by the courts for determining the jurisdiction areas when the online system is being used by one or more parties to buy or sell the products or services. In fact, in the final analysis, each case must be tried by the certain court in a certain physical location.