Question 1

In rem jurisdiction means that a court has the power to issue a judgment with respect to property such as a house or bank account.

Accepted Answer

In rem jurisdiction is also known as jurisdiction over property. It allows a court to have power over a particular property and issue a judgment related to that property, even if the property owner is not present in the court or has no personal connection with the court's jurisdiction.

Question 2

In Blimka v. My Web Wholesalers, which involved a dispute between an Idaho resident who ordered jeans from a Maine website-based seller, the Idaho court held that due to diversity of citizenship the case would have to be heard in federal court.

Accepted Answer

The case of Blimka v. My Web Wholesalers does not focus on diversity of citizenship requiring the case to be heard in federal court. Instead, it revolves around whether the Maine-based seller had sufficient contacts with Idaho to justify the Idaho court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over the seller. Diversity of citizenship is a principle that allows for federal jurisdiction but is not the central issue in this case.

Question 3

In Blimka v. My Web Wholesalers, which involved a dispute between an Idaho resident who ordered jeans from a Maine website-based seller, the Idaho court held that since the Maine seller intended to do business in Idaho, it became subject to Idaho court jurisdiction.

Accepted Answer

The statement accurately reflects the holding in Blimka v. My Web Wholesalers.

Question 4

Because more than one court cannot have jurisdiction over the same case, federal courts have removal jurisdiction to insure that cases are moved to the proper state court.

Accepted Answer

Federal courts have removal jurisdiction to allow defendants to move cases from state courts to federal courts, not to ensure cases are moved to the proper state court. This is typically done when a case involves federal law or when there is diversity jurisdiction, meaning the plaintiff and defendant are from different states and the amount in controversy exceeds a certain threshold.

Question 5

A case involving in rem jurisdiction means a court has authority to control property such as a house, but does not include intangible property, such as stock in a company.

Accepted Answer

In rem jurisdiction refers to the court's power over an item of property, which can include both tangible and intangible property. The distinction is not about the type of property but about the court's authority over the property itself, regardless of its nature.

Question 6

If both parties to a case live in the same state and there is less than $75,000 in dispute, then no matter what the legal issue, the case must be in state court.

Accepted Answer

Federal courts can have jurisdiction over certain types of cases even if the parties are from the same state and the amount in dispute is less than $75,000, such as cases involving federal questions (issues arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties).

Question 7

Federal courts have jurisdiction over matters such as divorce if the parties to the case now live in separate states.

Accepted Answer

Divorce and most family law matters are under the jurisdiction of state courts, not federal courts, regardless of the parties living in different states.

Question 8

A court can exercise jurisdiction over a corporate defendant if the court is located in the state in which the corporation has "visible advertising."

Accepted Answer

Jurisdiction over a corporate defendant is determined by various factors, including the corporation's contacts with the forum state (where the court is located). Visible advertising alone is not enough to establish jurisdiction. Instead, courts look at factors such as the corporation's physical presence, contracts entered into in the state, and the extent of its business activity in the state.

Question 9

In Blimka v. My Web Wholesalers, which involved a dispute between an Idaho resident who ordered jeans from a Maine website-based seller, the Idaho court held that since the Maine seller had no physical presence in Idaho it was not subject to Idaho court jurisdiction.

Accepted Answer

The Idaho court held that the Maine seller was subject to Idaho court jurisdiction because the seller had established sufficient minimum contacts with Idaho through its website, which targeted Idaho residents among others, thus satisfying the requirements for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause.

Question 10

Under in rem jurisdiction, a court has power over the real (physical) property of a defendant but not financial assets of a defendant.

Accepted Answer

In rem jurisdiction allows a court to exercise power over a defendant's property, which can include both real property and financial assets, as long as the property is within the court's jurisdiction.

Question 11

Concurrent jurisdiction means both a state court and a federal court may have the power to hear a case.

Accepted Answer

Concurrent jurisdiction refers to situations where both state and federal courts have authority over a case. Therefore, concurrent jurisdiction means that both a state court and a federal court may have the power to hear a case.

Question 12

If the parties to a case are from different states, there is more than $75,000 in dispute, and federal law is involved, the case may be heard in either federal or state court.

Accepted Answer

This statement is true, as it refers to the conditions for diversity jurisdiction, which allows for the case to be heard in either federal or state court.

Question 13

An action may be removed from state court to federal court by a defendant based on diversity of citizenship.

Accepted Answer

This is true under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. If the parties in a case are from different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, then the defendant can remove the case from state court to federal court.

Question 14

If the parties to a case are from different states, there is more than $75,000 in dispute, and state law is involved, the case may be heard in either federal or state court.

Accepted Answer

This is a correct statement regarding diversity jurisdiction. When the parties are from different states, the amount in dispute is more than $75,000, and state law is involved, the case may be heard in either federal or state court.

Question 15

A court can exercise jurisdiction over a corporate defendant if the court is located in the state in which the corporation is doing business.

Accepted Answer

This statement is generally true. A court can exercise jurisdiction over a corporation if the corporation has sufficient contacts with the state in which the court is located. This can include conducting business within the state or having a significant presence or impact in the state. However, the specific requirements for exercising jurisdiction over a corporate defendant can vary depending on the state and the circumstances of the case.

Question 16

Under in rem jurisdiction, a court has power over the property of a defendant regardless of where the property is located.

Accepted Answer

In rem jurisdiction refers to the court's power over an object or property located within its geographical boundaries, not property located anywhere.

Question 17

A suit tried in federal court must use federal law to resolve the matter; a suit tried in state court must use state law to resolve the matter.

Accepted Answer

Federal courts can apply state law in certain cases, such as diversity jurisdiction cases, while state courts can apply federal law when federal issues are involved.

Question 18

A court can exercise jurisdiction over a corporate defendant if the court is located in the state in which the corporation has a production plant.

Accepted Answer

This statement is generally true. A court can exercise jurisdiction over a corporate defendant if the corporation has sufficient minimum contacts with the state in which the court is located. Having a production plant in the state would likely qualify as sufficient minimum contacts for the court to exercise jurisdiction. However, the specific facts of each case and the laws of each state may vary, so it is important to consult with an attorney for specific advice regarding jurisdiction.

Question 19

If a dispute may be resolved in federal courts only, the federal court is said to have exclusive jurisdiction.

Accepted Answer

Exclusive jurisdiction means that only one court has the authority to hear and decide a case. In the case of disputes that may be resolved in federal courts only, the federal court has exclusive jurisdiction.

Question 20

In Blimka v. My Web Wholesalers, which involved a dispute between an Idaho resident who ordered jeans from a Maine website-based seller, the Idaho court held that the Maine seller was subject to Idaho court jurisdiction under the state long-arm statute.

Accepted Answer

The statement accurately describes the holding in Blimka v. My Web Wholesalers.

Quiz 2: The Court Systems