1
00:00:05,940 --> 00:00:10,757
An important foundational issue in the law
is the question of jurisdiction.

2
00:00:11,381 --> 00:00:15,560
Jurisdiction is about a court's power
to hear a case.

3
00:00:15,951 --> 00:00:19,225
Questions and doctrines
related to jurisdiction

4
00:00:19,225 --> 00:00:22,402
are especially developed
in the United States,

5
00:00:22,980 --> 00:00:25,850
where there are
a host of rules in this respect.

6
00:00:26,400 --> 00:00:29,720
This will therefore be
the focus of this lesson.

7
00:00:32,420 --> 00:00:35,594
There are three basic aspects
to jurisdiction,

8
00:00:35,594 --> 00:00:38,390
or three basic types of jurisdiction.

9
00:00:39,313 --> 00:00:41,671
The first is whether a court
has jurisdiction

10
00:00:41,671 --> 00:00:44,279
over the subject matter of a case.

11
00:00:45,081 --> 00:00:48,092
That is called 
subject matter jurisdiction.

12
00:00:49,300 --> 00:00:53,794
The question here is whether a court is
the right court for the type of dispute.

13
00:00:54,580 --> 00:00:59,224
For instance, the U.S. Patent Court 
has jurisdiction over patent disputes,

14
00:00:59,904 --> 00:01:03,579
but it has obviously no jurisdiction
over divorce proceedings.

15
00:01:04,486 --> 00:01:07,220
Or a criminal law court 
can hear criminal law cases,

16
00:01:07,680 --> 00:01:11,100
but it doesn't have jurisdiction
over civil matters like tort

17
00:01:11,330 --> 00:01:13,101
or contractual disputes.

18
00:01:16,975 --> 00:01:20,392
The second type of jurisdiction
is personal jurisdiction.

19
00:01:21,100 --> 00:01:23,516
In order to be allowed to hear a case,

20
00:01:23,840 --> 00:01:25,139
a court needs to have

21
00:01:25,139 --> 00:01:29,271
both subject matter jurisdiction
and personal jurisdiction.

22
00:01:30,310 --> 00:01:34,450
Personal jurisdiction asks
whether a court has jurisdiction

23
00:01:34,450 --> 00:01:37,662
over a specific person or organization

24
00:01:38,189 --> 00:01:40,320
as the defendant in a case.

25
00:01:41,280 --> 00:01:44,897
Normally, a court in the state 
where a defendant resides

26
00:01:44,897 --> 00:01:47,280
has jurisdiction over that person,

27
00:01:47,900 --> 00:01:50,400
but courts in other states don't.

28
00:01:51,110 --> 00:01:52,110
For example,

29
00:01:52,110 --> 00:01:56,990
a court in the state of California
does not necessarily have jurisdiction

30
00:01:56,990 --> 00:01:59,463
over a person who resides in New York.

31
00:02:00,720 --> 00:02:02,980
Generally, the doctrine
of personal jurisdiction

32
00:02:02,980 --> 00:02:05,588
is grounded on two main principles:

33
00:02:06,394 --> 00:02:10,808
Courts should protect defendants
from the burden of facing litigation

34
00:02:11,311 --> 00:02:15,473
in an unlimited number 
of possibly remote jurisdictions,

35
00:02:16,138 --> 00:02:19,860
and courts should prevent
states from infringing

36
00:02:19,860 --> 00:02:22,210
on the sovereignty of other states

37
00:02:22,720 --> 00:02:24,543
by limiting the circumstances

38
00:02:24,543 --> 00:02:28,000
under which defendants
can be hauled into court.

39
00:02:31,180 --> 00:02:35,900
One exception to these guiding principles
is the concept of implied consent.

40
00:02:36,935 --> 00:02:41,315
There are various instances 
where someone's consent to jurisdiction

41
00:02:41,315 --> 00:02:45,540
in a place other than a person's
residence can be implied.

42
00:02:46,320 --> 00:02:49,703
Among others, examples
of implied consent include:

43
00:02:50,310 --> 00:02:52,610
Driving on the roads of another state.

44
00:02:53,080 --> 00:02:55,298
This may count as implied consent

45
00:02:55,298 --> 00:02:58,030
to be subject
to that state's jurisdiction.

46
00:02:59,260 --> 00:03:01,600
Committing a tort in another state

47
00:03:01,600 --> 00:03:05,500
can also result
in applied jurisdiction in that state.

48
00:03:06,568 --> 00:03:10,225
Furthermore, a non-resident
can be served with a summons

49
00:03:10,490 --> 00:03:12,843
while personally present in a state

50
00:03:13,300 --> 00:03:17,220
and is then subject
to jurisdiction in that state.

51
00:03:18,700 --> 00:03:23,752
But it is also possible
to explicitly consent to jurisdiction.

52
00:03:24,556 --> 00:03:27,316
For instance, 
someone who resides in New York

53
00:03:27,857 --> 00:03:30,149
could agree to be sued in California.

54
00:03:30,743 --> 00:03:33,257
If so, then there is explicit consent

55
00:03:33,620 --> 00:03:37,261
to submit to the jurisdiction
of the courts in California.

56
00:03:40,106 --> 00:03:44,525
Businesses can also be subject
to jurisdictions outside the state

57
00:03:44,997 --> 00:03:48,537
where they are headquartered
if they conduct business in other states.

58
00:03:49,220 --> 00:03:52,668
This falls under the minimum contact test,

59
00:03:53,000 --> 00:03:58,269
which has been codified in several states'
so-called long-arm statutes.

60
00:03:59,355 --> 00:04:02,088
Doing business in a state can consist

61
00:04:02,540 --> 00:04:04,250
of maintaining an office,

62
00:04:04,761 --> 00:04:06,390
manufacturing goods,

63
00:04:06,740 --> 00:04:08,130
soliciting business,

64
00:04:08,430 --> 00:04:11,049
providing services, et cetera.

65
00:04:14,440 --> 00:04:17,938
The leading case on business
and minimum contacts

66
00:04:17,938 --> 00:04:21,970
is <i>International Shoe Company
v. State of Washington</i>,

67
00:04:22,200 --> 00:04:25,501
a Supreme Court decision from 1945.

68
00:04:26,758 --> 00:04:29,930
The plaintiff in that case,
the state of Washington,

69
00:04:29,930 --> 00:04:32,780
established a tax on business employers

70
00:04:32,780 --> 00:04:35,694
which consisted 
of a mandatory contribution

71
00:04:35,694 --> 00:04:39,858
to a fund for unemployed workers
in the state of Washington.

72
00:04:40,900 --> 00:04:43,462
The defendant, International Shoe Company,

73
00:04:43,780 --> 00:04:45,518
was incorporated in Delaware,

74
00:04:45,518 --> 00:04:48,118
with its principal place 
of business in Missouri.

75
00:04:49,272 --> 00:04:52,860
The company did not have
an office in Washington State.

76
00:04:53,540 --> 00:04:58,705
The corporation had maintained
for some time a staff of several salesmen

77
00:04:58,705 --> 00:05:00,255
in the state of Washington,

78
00:05:00,647 --> 00:05:02,157
working on commission.

79
00:05:03,420 --> 00:05:05,630
The salesmen were residents of that state,

80
00:05:05,630 --> 00:05:09,038
and they met with prospective customers
in motels and hotels

81
00:05:09,579 --> 00:05:12,715
and occasionally rented space
to put up displays.

82
00:05:13,785 --> 00:05:17,951
International Shoe Company
did not pay the tax at issue in this case,

83
00:05:18,468 --> 00:05:20,671
so the state tried to enforce collection.

84
00:05:21,308 --> 00:05:25,254
But International Shoe Company
disputed the state's jurisdiction

85
00:05:25,254 --> 00:05:27,540
over it as a corporate person.

86
00:05:28,580 --> 00:05:33,540
The lower courts held that Washington had
personal jurisdiction over the company,

87
00:05:33,840 --> 00:05:37,700
and International Shoe appealed
to the U.S. Supreme Court.

88
00:05:39,900 --> 00:05:42,722
The issue involved a determination

89
00:05:42,902 --> 00:05:45,550
of the level of connection that must exist

90
00:05:45,550 --> 00:05:49,650
between a non-resident corporation
and a state

91
00:05:49,650 --> 00:05:53,300
in order for that corporation
to be sued within that state.

92
00:05:54,308 --> 00:05:58,313
The Supreme Court held
that the activities by its salesmen

93
00:05:58,313 --> 00:06:00,257
on behalf of the corporation

94
00:06:00,257 --> 00:06:02,797
established sufficient contacts

95
00:06:03,000 --> 00:06:05,281
between the state and the corporation

96
00:06:05,565 --> 00:06:07,762
to make it reasonable and just

97
00:06:08,043 --> 00:06:10,920
for the state to enforce
against the corporation

98
00:06:10,920 --> 00:06:14,403
an obligation 
arising out of such activities.

99
00:06:16,472 --> 00:06:20,905
The key reasons were
that there had been continuous

100
00:06:20,905 --> 00:06:24,380
and systematic business
operations in the state.

101
00:06:25,851 --> 00:06:29,088
Case law on minimum contacts
is still evolving,

102
00:06:29,580 --> 00:06:33,617
more recently, in particular
in the context of e-commerce.

103
00:06:34,240 --> 00:06:36,380
For instance, some courts have held

104
00:06:36,560 --> 00:06:41,801
that a passive web page is insufficient
to establish personal jurisdiction,

105
00:06:42,360 --> 00:06:46,623
but an interactive website through which
a defendant conducts business

106
00:06:47,187 --> 00:06:51,674
can be enough to establish
personal jurisdiction in the locations

107
00:06:52,080 --> 00:06:55,660
from where the website's users
access the site.

108
00:06:57,479 --> 00:07:02,515
The third and final type of jurisdiction
is in rem jurisdiction.

109
00:07:03,186 --> 00:07:07,886
Rem refers to the Latin term
for thing or property.

110
00:07:08,890 --> 00:07:12,918
In rem jurisdiction asks
whether a court has the power

111
00:07:12,918 --> 00:07:16,345
to decide cases
concerning a specific property.

112
00:07:17,260 --> 00:07:20,470
For example, a court in New York
may not have the power

113
00:07:20,470 --> 00:07:22,792
to decide cases involving a house

114
00:07:23,100 --> 00:07:25,051
that is located in California.

115
00:07:25,680 --> 00:07:30,050
Conversely, the California court
will likely have in rem jurisdiction

116
00:07:30,050 --> 00:07:33,118
over that property, based on its location.

117
00:07:37,630 --> 00:07:41,009
Let's try and apply
these principles to an example.

118
00:07:41,660 --> 00:07:44,543
Let's say that a tenant
rents an apartment in New York

119
00:07:44,543 --> 00:07:47,256
from a landlord
who resides in Connecticut.

120
00:07:47,900 --> 00:07:51,183
The tenant has a slip and fall
in his apartment

121
00:07:51,500 --> 00:07:54,740
due to a puddle of water in the lobby
and breaks his leg.

122
00:07:55,252 --> 00:07:57,790
Where can the tenant sue the landlord?

123
00:07:58,930 --> 00:08:01,500
There are actually a few options here.

124
00:08:02,387 --> 00:08:06,260
The tenant may sue in Connecticut
because the landlord resides there.

125
00:08:06,520 --> 00:08:08,536
That's personal jurisdiction.

126
00:08:09,840 --> 00:08:11,897
The tenant may also sue in New York

127
00:08:12,220 --> 00:08:14,520
because the landlord
is doing business there

128
00:08:14,520 --> 00:08:16,170
by renting out the apartment.

129
00:08:16,990 --> 00:08:21,404
That's long-arm jurisdiction
under the minimum contacts test

130
00:08:21,404 --> 00:08:24,380
established
in the International Shoe case.

131
00:08:25,380 --> 00:08:30,240
The tenant could also sue in New York
because the apartment is located there,

132
00:08:30,240 --> 00:08:33,010
and the dispute arises
out of this property.

133
00:08:33,740 --> 00:08:35,963
That's in rem jurisdiction.

134
00:08:37,166 --> 00:08:39,840
Finally, the tenant 
may also sue in New York

135
00:08:40,080 --> 00:08:43,180
because the landlord
may have committed a tort there,

136
00:08:43,440 --> 00:08:46,168
which establishes implied consent.