Subject Matter Jurisdiction Essay

In determining where a case can be brought, multiple factors are considered by the courts such as subject-matter jurisdiction, as well as in personam or in rem jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction determines what type of court will hear the case. These types of jurisdiction include exclusive federal jurisdiction, state jurisdiction, and concurrent federal jurisdiction. While state jurisdiction usually only gives jurisdiction within the state, federal jurisdiction extends beyond geographical boundaries. In personam jurisdiction is the court’s ability to rule in a case affecting a person’s rights. In rem jurisdiction is the court’s ability to rule in a case affecting a person’s property. Thanks to long-arm statutes, courts are able
to serve defendants who are not in the state as long as the “minimum contacts” standard has been met. Most states consider committing a tort or conducting business in another state suitable for serving out-of-state defendants.
Moreover, our text indicates that the standards of “minimum contacts” were established in the 1945 trial of International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (Kubasek 2012). In the aforementioned case, it was determined that to meet the standard of “minimum contacts” to be able to hold a trial in a certain state if one of the parties is in another state, the out-of-state party must have held a presence in the initial state, was provided sufficient notice of the suit, and the activities related to the case occurred within the initial state (International, 1945). In regard to Hagan v. Field (2006), the plaintiff filed the suit in Texas against defendants who reside in Colorado. The Texas court requires that the defendant must have established minimum contacts in the state and is in accordance with traditional concepts of fair play and justice to establish jurisdiction on an out-of-state defendant. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff stating the defendants met the standards of minimum contacts in Texas. Since the defendants were only in Texas one time and their business there was not related to the activities in the case, I disagree with the court’s decision. To meet the
standards of “minimum contacts,” the defendants must have a presence in the state of Texas, which they did not. They did not make regular visits to Texas and the cats related to the trial were sent to them, they did not go to Texas to get them. Therefore, there was no business related to the case held in the state of Texas, so Texas should not be granted jurisdiction over the case. As for Jones v. Williams (2009), the plaintiff filed a suit in her home state of California against defendants residing in New Mexico. California court requires the defendant voluntarily performed business within the state, the claim is directly related to activities within the state, and jurisdiction is reasonable. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff stating California has jurisdiction. I agree with the court in this case; they made the correct decision. My reasoning for reaching this conclusion is the same as the court provided. The defendants had a strong presence in California as they conducted multiple phone sessions with the plaintiff, but also made trips several trips to California to perform the therapy. By performing therapy in-person in California on more than one occasion, they established a presence there. In addition, the plaintiff is suing the defendant for medical malpractice directly related to the therapy that occurred in California. The plaintiff’s presence in California and the connection of the activities to the case at hand undoubtedly meet the criteria for “minimum contacts” which provides California jurisdiction of the case.