In this case the nursing home (plaintiff) would like to seek evidence made by defendant's CEO. The evidence contains email and interviews made by the CEO. The plaintiff can do so during the discovery process of the lawsuit, by requesting defendant to hand over the requested documents and interview tapes. The plaintiff may also request a sub-poena a court order to obtain documents from people in possession of these evidence, such as the author of the CEO's biography.
Courts with original jurisdiction have jurisdiction to try the case first.
Courts with general jurisdiction have jurisdiction on most civil and criminal cases.
Courts with limited jurisdiction have jurisdiction only on certain cases.
Courts with appellate jurisdiction have jurisdiction to decide cases on appeal
a) Small claims court has original and limited jurisdiction on matters of dispute usually less than a set amount of money.
b) Federal Bankruptcy Court has original and limited jurisdiction on matters dealing with bankruptcy proceedings.
c) Federal District Court has original and general jurisdiction. It is the trial court on most matters dealing with federal law, or interstate disputes
d) U.S. Supreme court has original , general, and appellate jurisdiction. It the original court for certain trials affecting states, and foreign ambassadors. It can hear on most matters, and review appeals from lower court systems.
e) Municipal court has original and general jurisdiction. It is the trial court for on most matters within its locality.
f) Probate court has original and limited jurisdiction on matters dealing with the estate of a diseased person.
g) Federal court of appeal has appellate jurisdiction and in the case of the Federal Circuit has limited jurisdiction. The court of appeals review appeals from lower courts and those in the Federal Circuit are limited to hearing cases on certain issues.
In today's world time is an important and most valuable element for businesses. Every second is treated as money. Businesses are required to compete in a huge competitive world by making the best use of time and resources. In spite of well written contracts and agreements disputes are bound to happen. The disputes if any has to be resolved as quickly as possible in order to restore the things back to normal. Business disputes can be resolved through court or through alternative dispute mechanism.
Most of the business try to resolve the disputes through alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and try to avoid court because:
• The legal procedure and paper work involved is more through court procedure
• The lawyers are expensive to be hired and more money has to be invested for court processes
• Courts consume lot of time due to many legal steps
Therefore, to save time and money, businesses use alternate dispute resolution (ADR) methods. ADR refers to settling disputes outside the court using any of the ADR methods such as neutral evaluation, negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration.
Arbitration is one of the methods of alternate dispute resolution. In arbitration, the parties to a dispute select a neutral third party to hear and determine a resolution for which the parties agrees to bound to the arbitrators decision.
Most arbitration is considered to be binding and courts do enforce them when the parties agree that the decision is binding. However an arbitrator's judgement can be set aside only in the following cases:
1. When there is a clear evidence of fraud or corrupt or undue practice on the part of the arbitrator or any of the party in making the judgement
2. Where the arbitrators are guilty of any misconduct
3. When the arbitrator has worked beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement and is not in accordance with the arbitration act
4. When there is a procedural error in the process
In a situation where two doctors had a dispute on who was doing how much work at their place sort to arbitration, arbitrator favoured the less experienced doctor.
The senior doctor can set aside the arbitrators judgement if he can prove that there is unreasonableness and a potential fraud or corrupt action on the part of the arbitrator.
There is no answer for this question