快轉到主要內容

Commencing a Legal Action

·793 字·2 分鐘
Y Cheung
作者
Y Cheung
Blogger, Programer & Traveler.
美国法律体系 - 本文屬於一個選集。
§ : 本文

Lawsuits do not begin themselves. Someone must first decide to sue someone else for an alleged injury. If the decision is made intelligently, the person choosing to sue must have weighted several matters, among which at least three are basic.

A potential litigant obviously feels aggrieved. But before making the decision to sue, he must first consider whether the grievance is one for which the law furnishes a relief. There are many wrongs that the law will not redress. if a person has suffered an injury that is not redressable by a court of law, litigation will be a fruitless attempt.

Even if he concludes that his grievance is one for which the courts will grant relief, a potential litigant must consider the probability of winning the lawsuit. He must ask whether he can find and bring to court the person who has injured him; whether he can produce the witnesses and evidence that will prove the case; whether his adversary can justify his conduct or establish any defense to the action; and whether his estimate of the law will turn out to be correct.

And then, perhaps most important of all, he must ask himself whether the lawsuit is worth the tiome, the effort and the expenses it will cost, or whether other alternatives, among them settlement, arbitration, self-help and letting matters rest, are better. He must also consider what form the relief will take. If is is a judgment for damages, will it be satisfactory? Will the defendant be rich enough to pay? Will he antagonize people whose good will he needs? Will the action publicize an error of judgment on his part, or open his private affairs to public gaze?

It is only afert all these questions have been resolved that a potential litigant may consider to which court he should bring the case. He probably will have some choice, but it will be a limited one.

A lawsuit must be brought before a court that has the power to hear the case. The power to hear the case is known as jurisdiction, which has two aspects: jurisdiction over the subject matter and jurisdiction over the parties. The former means that the lawsuit must be of the type that the court was created to decide. A criminal court would have no jurisdiction in a divorce matter. A federal district court will not have no jurisdiction over many disputes ( disputes, for example, over damages for breach of contract between citizens of one state ), because the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts is limited by the Constitution.      If the plaintiff’s claim arises under a federal law, or if he is to sue someone who is a citizen of another state, and his claim is more than the required amount, he may have a choice between the state court system and the federal court system. If he chooses a state court when federal jurisdiction is available, he must consider whether the other party will request removal of the case to a federal court.

It is not enough that the court selected by the plaintiff has jurisdiction over the subject matter, however. A court must also have jurisdiction over the parties. Its jurisdiction over the plaintiff is established when the plaintiff files the suit with the court and thus voluntarily submits to its jurisdiction.

For a court to have jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, it must be one in which the defendant can be required to appear. If the defendant is a citizen of the forum state, personal jurisdiction will not be a problem because everyone has to submit to the jurisdiction of his home state. But if he is from out of the forum state, whether a court can assert jurisdiction over him will depend on whether he satisfies the minimum contact laws of that state. Minimum contact laws are designed to protect a defendant from being sued in a hostile and possibly far-off location. They require that the defendant have sufficient contacts with the forum state so that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Very often, more than one court in a state will satisfy the requirement of jurisdiction over a case. To select among them the question of venue must be considered. Venue relates to, and defines, the particular territorial area within the state in which legal action is to take place. Matters of venue are usually determined by statute. For example, venue statutes in most states provide that actions concerning interests in land must be commenced and tried in the county or district in which the land is located. Suits for divorce must be commenced and tried in the county in which one of the parties resides.

美国法律体系 - 本文屬於一個選集。
§ : 本文

相關文章

Separation of Powers

·687 字·2 分鐘
The framers of the constitution knew that accumulation of all powers in the same hands would result in tyranny. In their effort to prevent tyranny and to form a more perfect union, they undertook to separate the legislative, the executive and the judicial powers in the first three articles of the Constitution. But, knowing equally well that an absolute separation would only impair the effective function of the government, they also rejected a total separation of powers.

The Adversary System

·759 字·2 分鐘
The law of procedure can be divided into criminal and civil. Civil procedure is the body of rules by which the parties in civil litigation use the court to settle disputes. Generally, the party bringing the lawsuit to the court is called the plaintiff, and the party against whom the action is brought is called the defendant. On appeal, the appealing party is usually referred to as appellant, and the winning party at trial is called the appellee.

The Dual Court System 双轨制法院体系

·676 字·2 分鐘
The American judicial system, reflecting the overall decentralized nature of its government, comprises a large number of federal and state courts. The federal and the state judicial systems are each constructed like a pyramid. Entry-level courts at both the state and federal levels are trial courts, tn which witnesses are called, other evidence is presented and the fact-finder ( ajury or sometimes a jujdge ) is called upon to decide issues of fact based on the law.

Law under American Federalism

·795 字·2 分鐘
The United States has a federal system of government. What this means is that under the US Constitution there is a national, or federal, government, and there are individual states, each enjoying a substantial degree of autonomy. Each state has its own constitution, its own government, its own set of statutory laws made by its own legislature, and, because of the common law tradition, a body of case law created by its own courts.

美国法院体系 The American Court System

·5378 字·11 分鐘
Unlike most countries in the world, actually, there are fifty-two court systems in America—one for each of the fifty states, one for the District of Columbia, plus a federal system—similarities abound. The state court systems are established according to the constitution of each state. The federal courts are not superior to the state courts; they are simply independent systems of courts, which derives its authority from Article 3, Section2, of the U.S. Constitution. Although state court systems differ, Exhibit3-1 illustrates the basic organizational structure characteristic of the court system in many states. The exhibit also shows how federal court system is structured.