First, when removing a case to federal court, it must be considered if the federal court had original jurisdiction in the case which is exactly what Quincy alludes to when stating the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. One type of subject matter jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction which is the courts ability to hear federal claims. The only claim in this case is breach of contract which is a state claim, not a federal claim. Therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The second type of subject matter jurisdiction is diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction applies if the parties are citizens are different states and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. The case has complete diversity as all three parties are citizens of different states; however, the amount in controversy is not more than $75,000. While Sally and Randy together have claims amounting to more than $75,000, the amount of the claims cannot be combined as the defendants are not jointly liable for the breaches. Therefore, Quincy has sought to recover $65,000 in damages from Randy and $45,000 in damages from Sandy of which the amounts are not over $75,000 individually, and therefore do not qualify for diversity jurisdiction. …show more content…
To remove a case to federal court, both defendants must file for removal within 30 days of the defendant last served with the summons and complaint. Sally was the last individual served on August 17th. Sally filed a notice of removal with the state court, the federal district court, and Randy as appropriate. However, Randy did not file the notice of removal together with Sally or separately file the notice of removal. The final date Randy can file a notice of removal is September 16th which has not yet passed (I assumed this case is in 2017. If it is a prior year, then Randy has not met the 30-day time period to appropriately file a notice of
III. Issue. The issue is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the employer appellee on the employee appellant’s sexual harassment claim, and whether the court was right in excluding evidence regarding the sexual
Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions.
a. but most admiralty cases can be brought in state courts unless qualify under diversity.
Q1 THE COURT/S IN WHICH THE CASE WAS HEARD (OUTLINE THE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT)
Proximate Cause: The shoulder and rotator cuff injuries were within the scope of the risks that made us determine that the dropping of Vicky’s body was a breach. Because Dwayne dropped Vicky, Dwayne’s dropping of Vicky’s body proximately caused the injuries sustained. Felix’s carrying of the body was a cause in fact but not the proximate cause of the injuries Vicky
To begin with, the United States’ Supreme Court is the utmost federal court in the government, established with precedence over the lower court system. It has appellate jurisdiction over all cases concerning the Constitution and/or federal law. For a case to reach the Supreme Court, the conflict is required to be between two or more states, concerning an ambassador, or a violation of the Constitution. One case that reached the Supreme Court of the United States was Mapp v. Ohio. Dollree Mapp was arrested in May of 1957 for the ownership of lewd materials, including obscene photographs and books. After she was incarcerated for this crime, she appealed her case to the Supreme Court against the State of Ohio. Ernesto Miranda’s case against the State of Arizona also extended to the Supreme Court in 1966. The appellant was arrested and convicted for the kidnapping
The merits of both the adversarial and inquisitorial system will be explored throughout this paper. The Australian rule of law best describes as all law should be applied equally and fairly. The five vital operations of the rule of law includes fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency, and impartially. The adversarial system adopts these operations by having a jury decide on the verdict and the judge being an impartial decision maker. In contrast, the inquisitorial system relies heavily on the judge. This can result in abusive power and bias of the judge when hearing evidence and delivering verdicts. The operations of the rule of law determine why the rule of law is best served by the adversarial system in Australia.
However, the U.S. District Courts are required to handle these two special cases, which are the cases from the Court of International Trade and U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In addition, every district with Federal district courts also has one U.S. bankruptcy court. California Superior Courts, in contract, take care of "appeals of small claims cases and other civil cases worth $25,000 or less and appeals of misdemeanor cases" (Superior Court of California). An example can be found where a citizen violated the state law and was sued by the state government.
This paper assumes that a police officer may or may not have “probable cause to arrest a defendant for armed assault” (AIU, 2016, para 1). I will address if the police officer had probable cause to believe that there is a person hiding in the third person’s garage, attached to the house (AIU, 2016, para 1). Accordingly, the police officer may need or not a warrant “to enter the garage to arrest the defendant” (AIU, 2016, para 2). An examination to “if the officer is in hot pursuit with the defendant” (AIU, 2016, para 2), and if the defendant is known to be injured and armed” (AIU, 2015, para 2). In addition, explain if the police officer probable cause to arrest and search the A and B residences.
How are federal courts of general jurisdiction different from state courts of general jurisdiction? State courts deal with every day cases dealing with state laws and regulations. They can vary from criminal procedures in civil or family cases, to lower offenses, such as parking tickets. They tend to be specific to the laws of each state, as the state is allowed to form their own set of laws to keep their residents “free and treat them equally”. Federal courts on the other hand, hear criminal that violate the US Constitution and/or cases that cross state lines , along with civil cases or bankruptcy cases. Both courts have appellate courts and interprets the laws (either state or federal laws). Federal court is more selective on the cases it
In 2011, Minton appeals to the Texas State Court of Appeals. Minton argued his legal malpractice suit was based on patent law and that the state court did not use “subject matter jurisdiction.” Furthermore, Minton asked the Texas State Court of Appeals to dismiss the patent infringement case in order to sue for the second time.
For Olive oil case to be removed from State court, she will have to prove within 30 days days after being arrested that the case belongs in federal court. For the fact that Olive oil U.S Constitution right was violated, this case qualifies for federal court. For Olive oil case
Throughout the years there has been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved. However, for those that are not so willing to settle out of court, they eventually visit the court system. The court system is not in existence to cause humiliation for anyone, but more so to offer a helping hand from a legal prospective. At the same time, the legal system is not to be abuse. or misused either.
The Scopes Trial is one that boiled down to forcing the judge, and all the people impacted, to choose between taking a side on an important matter: faith or science. Because the trial occurred in a little rural town in Tennessee, the majority of the jury, and the judge himself, were of the Christian faith, or at least were raised in that atmosphere. The trial was one that did not debate so much whether God existed and created the world, but whether the Word of God should be taken literally or not. This debate had one side viewing the other as basically heathens, and the second side viewed the first as foolish and ignorant hillbillies.
Amount 26 states and the individuals have argued stating that law is not jurisdictional because it is not a barrier to both the individuals (NYTimes, 2013).