Quiz 3: Courts and Alternative Dispute Resolution
The process of determining whether the actions and laws of the other two branches (State and Federal) are constitutional is known as judicial review. This process enables the judicial system to have check on the two branches of the govt. Supreme Court judgement in 1803 in case of Marbury V Madison, Justice John Marshall, said that act of congress was unconstitutional. This is the first time, where Judicial Review was done. In this judgement, Supreme Court mentioned that Federal Government act should be reviewed by the federal courts and should be seen whether the acts are constitutionally correct and if acts are not valid as per the constitution then court should declare them void. Since then courts are exercising the power of judicial review.
Before the arbitration starts, all he involved parties sign the papers and agree to the fact that they will follow he arbitrator's decision blindly without worrying about the results. Parties can choose mediation over arbitration if they do not want binding in their case. The results of the arbitrator is very fast and so people are ready to sign the agreement stating that arbitrator's decision is last. The arbitrators decision is binding and have force of law because a case once decided by the arbitrator is not entertained in the court.
Case facts 1. Mr. SG resides in Illinois, 2. Mr. Foreman resides in Texas, 3. The meeting between them took place in Nevada, 4. Mr. SG filed case against Mr. Foreman in Illinois. Relative concept The term "Jurisdiction" refers to the authority of a court to hear the case. A court can only hear a case, if the court have jurisdiction over the issue or the person involved in the case. 1)A federal district court can exercise jurisdiction in a cases involving " diversity of citizenship ". A case claim federal jurisdiction is required to fulfill two necessary conditions, as follows: 1. The plaintiff and defendant must be the resident of different states, 2. The issue must involve a dollar amount that exceeds $75,000. If the above case fulfills the necessary requirements of diversity of citizenship, a federal court can exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter. 2)A court is said to have "original jurisdiction" over a case, if the case is being heard for the first time. A court is said to have "Appellate jurisdiction" over the cases being heard by lower courts. In this case, if the case directly goes to federal district court for hearing under " diversity of citizenship " concept, the federal district court will have original jurisdiction. However, if the case starts in a state court, the federal district court will have appellate jurisdiction. 3)A court can have personal jurisdiction over "Mr. Foreman and his manager (defendant)", only if they pass the minimum contact test under " long arm statute " i.e. the courts must find that there is a sufficient contact of the defendant with the Illinois. In the given case, the defendant forms a non-discloser contract with the firm based in Illinois. The presence of the contract and the fact that the firm was incorporated in Illinois, grants Illinois courts to have personal jurisdiction over the case. 4)A court can have personal jurisdiction over "Mr. Foreman and his manager (defendant)", only if they pass the minimum contact test under " long arm statute " i.e. the courts must find that there is a sufficient contact of the defendant with the Illinois. In this case, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant belongs to the state of Nevada. Additionally, there is no sale or trade of services involve in the case. This means that the case will fail to meet the minimum contact test. Hence, the courts of Nevada will not have a personal jurisdiction.
There is no answer for this question