Jurisdiction is not simply of the personal variety; when attempting to sue someone, one needs to find someone who has both personal jurisdiction over them as well as subject matter jurisdiction. All states have for the most part, given their courts a broad form of subject-matter jurisdiction so that their citizens will be free to try a wide variety of cases in their courts. However, the defining detail is that despite the fact that most courts will be able to hear most claims, there are big differences one which courts can hear which claims with the state courts hearing the bulk load of cases -- 96,000,000 cases per year versus 1,900,000 cases in the federal court (Glannon, 2008). Much goes into selecting the appropriate court to bring a certain case within the realm of civil procedure. As already established, courts have to be determined via personal jurisdiction and subject matter with a third requirement being of the proper venue.
However, things become easily complex in the arena of civil procedure. For example, when a particular case involves a variety of states, it can be difficult to determine which state law should be applicable for trying the case. Using the state law of the area where the suit was filed is also problematic as it can cause the plaintiff to merely select the most legally benevolent state for its purposes -- instead a complicated set of approached for selecting the correct state are often in flux and are used for making this decision (Glannon, 2008).
A fair portion of civil procedure is forced to examine the right of the...
The plaintiff is essentially "master of his or her claim" by deciding who to sue; a given suit can be expanded via the task of establishing counter suits or cross suits with other parties.
As alluded to earlier, a given suit commences when pleadings are filed -- when the plaintiff files suit against the defendant. At this stage the understanding of the case and the position of all participants are at a certain position, but could be subject to change. This is particularly true given the research, discovery, preparation of expert witnesses, and legal investigation that occurs before a case goes to trial; thus parties might like to alter the legal theories present in their pleadings or the factual allegations of their initial pleadings (Glannon, 2008). Once a trial is finally decided and a verdict handed down, principles and functions like res judica and collateral estoppel might be necessary to use or might be considered harmful. Res judica stops additional litigation actions once a case has already been litigated.
Works Consulted
Cornell.edu. (2010, August 19). Civil Procedure: An Overview. Retrieved from Cornell.edu: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_procedure
Eisenberg, M. (2009). Gilbert Law Summaries. Thomson West.
Glannon, J. (2008). Civil Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition. New York: Aspen Publishers.
