Civil Procedure: Courts, Jurisdiction, and Due Process

Introduction to Civil Procedure

Under the broadest definition, civil procedure refers to the rules and regulations under which courts conduct civil trials. Civil trials concern the judicial resolution of claims by one individual or group against another, and are to be distinguished from criminal trials, in which the state prosecutes an individual for a violation of criminal law. Procedure is likewise to be distinguished from substantive law: substantive law defines the rights and duties of everyday conduct, as found in contract law or tort law (Cornell.edu, 2010).

A great number of statutes address the jurisdiction of civil courts. The Fourteenth Amendment famously bestows individuals with the right to life, liberty, and property, and such rights cannot be taken away without the appropriate due process of law. That due process includes the right to an attorney and the right to cross-examine witnesses. Furthermore, there are certain issues and situations regarding which potential plaintiffs are not permitted to sue.

Personal Jurisdiction and Minimum Contacts

A number of pervasive issues arise in civil procedure; one of the most significant is personal jurisdiction. In International Shoe, the Supreme Court held that the courts of a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant if she has such minimum contacts with the state that it would be fair to require her to return and defend a lawsuit there (Glannon, 2008). This is a typical example of the commonly broad language that characterizes civil procedure doctrine.

What this standard essentially means is that when a corporation decides to engage in official business activities within a particular state, it implicitly accepts — directly or indirectly — that it must answer for all its in-state activities before the local courts (Glannon, 2008). Any business entity therefore needs a full understanding of how its activities will affect the geographical area in which it operates, and that it may be held accountable to the courts of that state. The rationale and implications of this principle matter greatly, as they indicate a relevant narrowing of minimum contacts jurisdiction: because a court's power to exercise jurisdiction arises from an entity's relationship to the state, that power should be confined exclusively to cases stemming directly from that relationship (Glannon, 2008). Fundamentally, the Fourteenth Amendment imposes basic limitations on the power of state courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants in civil suits (Glannon, 2008).

It is also important to note that many assertions of jurisdiction under a long-arm statute are constitutional — though not all. Within the arena of civil procedure, it can be notoriously difficult to determine what is and is not constitutionally permissible. Another basic principle is that courts may not exercise judicial power over a person unless that individual has submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts of a particular state (Glannon, 2008).

Long-Arm Statutes and Constitutional Limits

A clear example would be if a New York journalist slanders a celebrity in a local New York newspaper, and the celebrity, based in California, files suit against that journalist. The journalist could challenge the suit by arguing that the California courts have no personal jurisdiction over him (Glannon, 2008, p. 557).

Jurisdiction is not simply a matter of personal authority over the parties. When attempting to sue someone, a plaintiff must find a court that has both personal jurisdiction over the defendant and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Most states have granted their courts broad subject matter jurisdiction so that their citizens may litigate a wide variety of cases. However, the critical distinction is that while most courts can hear most claims, there are significant differences in which courts hear which claims — state courts handle the bulk of cases at approximately 96,000,000 cases per year, compared with roughly 1,900,000 cases in the federal courts (Glannon, 2008).