The first concept is judicial review.

This Marbury versus Madison case was decided

by the US Supreme Court,

and it said that the courts have the ability

to review what the other branches of government

are doing, to determine whether they're constitutional or not.

"Jurisdiction" means "juris: law."

"Diction: to speak, or the power to speak the law."

If there's an actual controversy between parties

that's before the court, a court has jurisdiction

to speak the law and render a verdict

that's binding on all the parties.

"In personam" jurisdiction means jurisdiction over the person.

It's the power of the court to compel the presence of parties,

including corporations to a dispute to appear

before the court and litigate.

"In rem" means "property," so "in rem jurisdiction"

means "jurisdiction over the property."

It's the power to decide issues relating to property,

even if the person isn't within the jurisdiction.

And that property could be real, personal, tangible,

or intangible.

A "long arm" statute is a state law

that gives a state court jurisdiction over somebody

who is not a resident of this state,

as long as they've had minimum contact within that state.

So, for example, if a business that is headquartered

out-of-state advertises, sells a good within a state,

then that court would have jurisdiction

under long arm statutes.

In terms of sufficient minimum contacts of a corporation,

usually jurisdiction of the state-- it's incorporated,

has jurisdiction.

Where they have their principal place of business,

where their goods are sold, or where it actively advertises--

and there's an example of that in case 3.1.

A court also has to have jurisdiction

over the subject matter.

Courts are limited to what kind of cases they can hear.

There's cases of limited and general jurisdiction

but you go to a specific court

to have bankruptcy cases decided.

For example, bankruptcy cases are decided

in the federal district court

because that court has statutory subject matter jurisdiction.

Another way of looking at jurisdiction is "original"

and "appellate."

Another word for "original jurisdiction"

is "trial court jurisdiction."

It's the court that you are supposed to originally go to,

where you have your trial.

Appellate courts, they just hear appeals.

So, instead of hearing evidence, hearing from witnesses,

they just review the record of the lower court

and consider whether the decision was proper.

Usually, they're looking at just the record from the lower court.

Jurisdiction in federal cases.

There's two ways you get to federal court.

One is if it involves a federal question...

that might be under the US Constitution,

some federal action or federal law.

The second way is diversity jurisdiction

and you have to have both these things.

You have to have a party who's from a different state--

so the parties are diverse--

and then the amount in controversy

is greater than $75,000.

"Venue" is a separate concept from jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction has to do with power,

venue has to do with location.

So, several courts might have jurisdiction over a case,

venue has to do with the most appropriate place

for the trial to happen.

As it says, generally,

the proper venue is where the injury actually occurred.

Let's look at the state court system.

In every state court system, there's a trial court,

appellate or reviewing court, and highest court.

They often have different names.

In Michigan, we have the district court,

the circuit court,

the court of appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court.

But that might differ in other states in terms of the names

but there's always some trial court level,

appellate level and highest court.

We talked a little bit about the job of the appellate

or reviewing court.

They focus on questions of law, they defer to the trial court

that was in the position to determine what the facts were.

The highest state court--

they hear appeals that involve state issues.

They have the final say on questions of state law

and the only way you're going to move on to federal court

is if the case also involves some federal issue.

The pleadings.

The plaintiff complains, they serve that complaint

with a summons on the defendant.

The defendant has several choices.

They could answer-- they could admit or deny the allegations

in the complaint.

Move to dismiss-- perhaps alleging that the court

doesn't have jurisdiction over them

or even answer and file a counter-claim,

claiming there's something that the plaintiff did wrong.

After that, there's pre-trial motions.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings,

one party says they accept the facts or statements

in the pleadings and ask the court to rule on that--

or perhaps there's limited issues

that need to be decided and there could be summary judgment.

The next step is discovery.

Discovery is determining what evidence the other side has.

Depositions are oral testimony under oath.

Interrogatories are written questions under oath

that are given to the other side and there's lots of other types

of discovery.

Requesting information, even electronic information,

from the other party-- email.

And then, there's the pre-trial conference.

There's a couple purposes usually for pre-trial.

It's obviously to set up for trial,

make sure all the deadlines are met

or establish any future deadlines before trial,

but also to try to get the parties to settle the case.

The next step is "voir dire," or "jury selection."

And then, the trial.

Typically, there's plaintiff and defendant

having opening arguments at the start,

but certainly the plaintiff goes first

because they have the burden of proof.

The defendant could wait until after the plaintiff's

presented their case.

The plaintiff presents witnesses,

the defendant cross-examines.

At the end-- for example, at the end of the plaintiff's proofs

the defendant could move for a directed verdict--

say the plaintiff has failed to establish their case.

Otherwise, they finish the trial, closing arguments,

and then the judge or jury makes an award

in one favor or the other.

Post-trial motions.

A motion JNOV basically is asking the court

to set aside the jury's verdict.

A motion for a new trial-- perhaps there's evidence

that couldn't have been discovered before

that's now discovered and then there's the appeal process.

The appeal-- basically, the parties file a brief

with the appellate court asking for a decision on an issue

that would require a reversal of the trial court's verdict.

The court doesn't review new evidence.

It only considers the briefs, perhaps,

or arguments by the attorneys

and just looks at the record and evidence

introduced in trial.

And then, there could be some effort to enforce the judgment.

I mean, you could get a judgment against the party

and then they don't pay up, then you have to go to court

to get them to pay the judgment.

Some of these activities take place online.

Most courts have electronic filing.

Some have other proceedings, preliminary hearings online.

There hasn't been a real successful project

to put the whole court system online.

The three types of mediation-- alternative dispute resolution

could also take place online.

We'll talk about that in a little more detail in a minute.

You could do negotiations, mediation, arbitration.

So, looking and-- so far, we've been talking about litigation,

which is basically the parties suing each other,

going through court.

Negotiation could certainly take place during a trial

but also could take place outside or before a trial.

Negotiation is not using a third party

but resolving the dispute between plaintiff

and defendant.

Perhaps through attorneys, but the parties negotiate

and settle it themselves.

Mediation is typically non-binding

and involves a neutral third party,

so the plaintiff/defendant present it to a mediator.

That mediator renders a recommendation or decision,

and if it's non-binding,

then they could actually go on to trial.

Arbitration is typically binding.

Like it says here in "Examples,"

an employment contract is often binding

because it is agreed upon.

So credit cards, employment contracts, whatever it is--

it says if a dispute arises between the parties,

then the employee would-- as an example--

would take it to an arbitrator versus taking it court.

So, if the employee were to take it straight to court

then the employer could move to dismiss the case,

saying that the employment contract required arbitration

instead of litigation.

So, those are the three major-- there were other forms

of alternative dispute mentioned in the chapter,

but those are the three big ones.

And that's the end of chapter 3.