Northern Virginia Personal Injury Lawyer Blog : Northern Virginia Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Brien Roche Law Firm : Medical Malpractice, Product Liability, Car Accidents : Washington DC, North Virginia, Maryland

In order to file suit against a person in the state of Massachusetts, for example, either in state or federal court, you have to assert and be able to prove that the court (state or federal) has personal jurisdiction over that defendant. Personal jurisdiction can be obtained in a number of different ways.

* If the defendant committed the alleged wrong in the state of Massachusetts, then that would give the courts (state or federal) within that state personal jurisdiction over him or her.

* If the defendant lives in the state of Massachusetts, then the courts (state or federal) in that state would have personal jurisdiction over him or her.

* If the defendant has engaged in a course of conduct wherein he or she has substantial contacts with the state of Massachusetts and the claim in question “arose out of those contacts,” then that may likewise give the courts (state and federal) personal jurisdiction over him or her in the state of Massachusetts.

The concept of personal jurisdiction is entirely separate and distinct from the concept of subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts (in terms of civil claims) must be founded upon diversity or a federal question. That relates exclusively to what is called subject matter jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction deals with the issue of whether the court has authority over that defendant to litigate that claim.

The concept of personal jurisdiction is founded on the idea that it would be unfair for a citizen of
California to have to litigate a claim in Massachusetts unless that citizen of California had done something that would constitute some substantial contact with the state of Massachusetts that gave rise to the claim in question. The mere fact that a federal court may have subject matter jurisdiction to litigate your claim does not necessarily mean that it has personal jurisdiction over the defendant to litigate that claim.

Personal jurisdiction deals with the issue of whether the court has authority over a particular defendant.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The second way of bringing a civil claim into federal court is by suing under a federal statute or a federal constitutional provision. For instance, if you file a civil rights claim against your employer, even though you may be a citizen of Ohio and you employer may be a citizen of Ohio, you can still bring that claim in federal court because the claim is brought under federal law. Likewise, if you pursue a claim against a defendant under a theory involving a violation of your constitutional rights, then that type of claim may be brought in federal court because it is founded upon a federal constitutional issue.

Unlike diversity claims, federal question cases do not have any monetary jurisdictional limits. That is, the discrimination claim that you bring against your employer may only be worth one hundred dollars, but you can still bring that claim in federal court.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A diversity claim is one wherein the parties are of diverse citizenship. A citizen of the state of Connecticut may sue a citizen of the state of Massachusetts in the federal court in Massachusetts. That difference or diversity of citizenship establishes one of the elements of a diversity claim. The diversity claim, however, must also involve a monetary controversy in which the amount at stake is in excess of $75,000 (not including any interest or any attorneys fees that may be claimed).

The civil jurisdiction of the federal courts is legislated by Congress. Congress has chosen to limit the overall civil jurisdiction of the federal courts. The logic is that civil litigants can always go into state court to resolve their disputes, and as such the federal courts should be reserved only for certain types of disputes. Disputes between citizens of different states may be subject to some local or regional prejudice if brought in state court, and therefore Congress has decided that these types of civil claims, provided they meet the monetary amount set forth above, can be brought in federal court in order to avoid the potential prejudice or bias.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The federal court system is quite different from the state court system. You will recall from what was said previously that the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. On the other hand, the state courts are courts of general jurisdiction, or, to put it another way, virtually of unlimited jurisdiction. The term jurisdiction in this sense refers to subject matter jurisdiction—the types of claims that the court has the authority to hear.

There are some claims arising under federal law that can be asserted only in federal court, but the general rule is that virtually any type of civil claim (under state or federal law) can be brought in the state court system. That is not true of the federal court system. In order to bring a civil claim in the federal court, there are certain requirements that have to be met. There are two ways to bring a civil claim into federal court. You can bring a diversity claim or you can bring a claim involving a federal question.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An expert witness is simply a witness who has expertise in a particular area, whose testimony the court has determined may assist the jury in understanding the issues of the case and therefore fairly deciding the issues. Expert testimony has been abused over the years in that it is sometimes presented on issues that do not require expert testimony. The rule of thumb for the admissibility of expert testimony is that it must relate to a subject matter that the jury might have difficulty understanding without expert testimony. The expert must assist the jury in understanding the issue. In a medical malpractice case in which there is an issue as to whether the surgery should have been conducted one way or another, the jury needs to hear expert testimony from medical doctors as to how the surgery should have been conducted. The jury does not have the expertise to decide that issue on its own, and therefore must hear from medical experts who will educate the jurors as to what the medical issues are and how the surgery either should have or should not have been conducted. It is then up to the jury to decide which of those experts they believe and to render a verdict.

Certain types of expert testimony have been ruled inadmissible by some courts. For instance, in some jurisdictions, expert testimony of how a particular automobile accident may have occurred is considered to be inadmissible because that is normally considered to be something that a jury can understand and determine on its own, without the aid of expert testimony.

There is a tendency within the legal profession to offer expert testimony on as many issues as possible in order to bolster the claim or defense being asserted. Recently, many courts have taken a somewhat dim view of that tendency and have endeavored to restrict the admissibility of expert testimony. The reasoning is that in many of these types of cases, the jury has sufficient expertise or common sense to understand and resolve the issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks