n.

1. Law. The right and power to interpret and apply the law: courts having jurisdiction in this district.
2. 1. Authority or control: islands under U.S. jurisdiction; a bureau with jurisdiction over Native American affairs.
   2. The extent of authority or control: a family matter beyond the school's jurisdiction.
3. The territorial range of authority or control.

[Middle English jurisdiccioun, from Old French juridicion, from Latin iūrisdictiō, iūrisdictiōn- : iūris, genitive of iūs, law + dictiō, dictiōn-, declaration (from dictus, past participle of dīcere, to say).]

jurisdictional ju'ris·dic'tion·al adj.
jurisdictionally ju'ris·dic'tion·al·ly adv.

Defined by the American Bankers Association as "the legal right, power or authority to hear and determine a cause; as in the jurisdiction of a court." The term frequently comes up in finance and investment discussions in connection with the jurisdictions of the various regulatory authorities bearing on the field. For example, the Federal Reserve Board, not the Securities and Exchange Commission (as might be supposed), has jurisdiction in a case involving a brokerage Margin Account (see also Regulation T).

The term also is important with respect to Eurocurrency loan agreements, where it is possible for a loan to be funded in one country but made in another by a group of international banks each from different countries, to a borrower in still another country. The determination of jurisdiction, not to mention the willingness of courts in different countries to accept that jurisdiction, is a matter of obvious urgency in such cases.

Geographic or topical area of authority for a specific government entity.
Example: The jurisdiction of the Lower Valley Consolidated Appraisal District is a 3-county area surrounding the city of Valleyview. The federal district court has jurisdiction in all cases involving violation of federal law.

noun

The right and power to command, decide, rule, or judge: authority, command, control, domination, dominion, mastery, might, power, prerogative, sovereignty, sway. Informal say-so. See over/under.

n. 1. the official power to make legal decisions and judgments: federal courts had no jurisdiction over the case | the District of Columbia was placed under the jurisdiction of Congress.

2. the extent of this power: the claim will be within the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal.

3. the territory or sphere of activity over which the legal authority of a court or other institution extends.

jurisdictional adj.

See the Introduction, Abbreviations and Pronunciation for further details.

For more information on jurisdiction, visit Britannica.com.

A territory such as a state, province, county, shire, or municipality, that enforces building codes, construction standards, laws, and/or regulations within which its authority is exercised.

---

The extent or scope of a court's authority to hear and decide a case properly brought to it is its jurisdiction. There are two types of jurisdiction: original and appellate.

Original jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear and decide a case for the first time. In general, courts of original jurisdiction are minor courts or trial courts. Federal district courts, for example, are courts of original jurisdiction. Article 3, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution states that the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction only in suits involving ambassadors from other countries and in suits to which a state of the United States is a party. For instance, the Court had original jurisdiction in Georgia v. South Carolina (1990), a case involving the correct location of a boundary between the two states. In all cases except the types listed above, the U.S. Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction, which is the authority of a court to hear and decide cases brought on appeal from a lower court.

Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court is primarily an appellate court. Throughout its history, the Court has exercised original jurisdiction in fewer than 160 cases. Article 3, Section 2, of the Constitution provides that “the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to law and fact” with only a few exceptions. However, Article 3 also says that Congress has the power to regulate the nature and scope of the Supreme Court's power of appellate jurisdiction. Using this power, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1925 to give greater authority to the Court to decide which cases it would accept or reject on appeal from lower courts. The result was to greatly reduce the number of cases in the Court's caseload.

See also Judicial power

This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

The geographic area over which authority extends; legal authority; the authority to hear and determine causes of action.

Jurisdiction generally describes any authority over a certain area or certain persons. In the law, jurisdiction sometimes refers to a particular geographic area containing a defined legal authority. For example, the federal government is a jurisdiction unto itself. Its power spans the entire United States. Each state is also a jurisdiction unto itself with power to pass its own laws. Smaller geographic areas, such as counties and cities, are separate jurisdictions to the extent that they have powers independent of the federal and state governments.

Jurisdiction also may refer to the origin of a court's authority. A court may be designated either as a court of general jurisdiction or as a court of special jurisdiction. A court of general jurisdiction is a trial court that is empowered to hear all cases that are not specifically reserved for courts of special jurisdiction. A court of special jurisdiction is empowered to hear only certain kinds of cases.

Courts of general jurisdiction are often called district courts or superior courts. In New York, however, the court of general jurisdiction is called the Supreme Court of New York. In most jurisdictions other trial courts of special jurisdiction exist apart from the courts of general jurisdiction; examples are probate, tax, traffic, juvenile, and, in some cities, drug courts. On the federal level, the district courts are courts of general jurisdiction. Federal courts of special jurisdiction include the Tax Court and the bankruptcy courts.

Jurisdiction can also be used to define the proper court in which to bring a particular case. In this context a court has either original or appellate jurisdiction over a case. When the court has original jurisdiction, it is empowered to conduct a trial in the case. When the court has appellate jurisdiction, it may only review the trial court proceedings for error.

Generally, courts of general and special jurisdiction have original jurisdiction over most cases, and appeals courts and the jurisdiction's high court have appellate jurisdiction. But this is not always the case. For example, under Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court is a court of appellate jurisdiction. However, under the same clause, the Court has original jurisdiction in cases between states. Such cases usually concern disputes over boundaries and waterways.

Finally, jurisdiction refers to the inherent authority of a court to hear a case and declare a judgment. When a plaintiff seeks to initiate suit, he or she must determine where to file the complaint. The plaintiff must file suit in a court that has jurisdiction over the case. If the court does not have jurisdiction, the defendant may challenge the suit on that ground, and the suit may be dismissed or its result may be overturned in a subsequent action by one of the parties in the case.

A plaintiff may file suit in federal court; however, state courts generally have concurrent jurisdiction. Concurrent jurisdiction means that both the state and federal court have jurisdiction over the matter.

If a claim can be filed in either state or federal court, and the plaintiff files the claim in state court, the defendant may remove the case to federal court (28 U.S.C.A. § 1441 et seq.). This is a tactical decision. Federal court proceedings are widely considered to be less susceptible to bias because the jury pool is drawn from the entire state, not just from the local community.

State courts have concurrent jurisdiction in most cases. Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction in a limited number of cases, such as federal criminal, antitrust, bankruptcy, patent and copyright, and some admiralty cases, and suits against the U.S. government.

Under federal and state laws and court rules, a court may exercise its inherent authority only if it has two types of jurisdiction: personal and subject matter. Personal jurisdiction is the authority a court has over the parties in the case. Subject matter jurisdiction is a court's authority over the particular claim or controversy.

State Civil Court Jurisdiction

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is based on territorial concepts. That is, a court can gain personal jurisdiction over a party only if the party has a connection to the geographic area in which the court sits. Traditionally, this connection was satisfied only by the presence of the defendant in the state where the court sat. Since the late nineteenth century, notions of personal jurisdiction have expanded beyond territorial concepts, and courts may gain personal jurisdiction over defendants on a number of grounds. However, the territorial basis remains a reliable route to establishing personal jurisdiction.

A person who has a civil claim may file suit in a court located in her or his home state. If the defendant lives in the same state, the court will have no trouble gaining personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff must simply serve the defendant with a summons and a copy of the complaint that was filed with the court. Once this is accomplished, the court has personal jurisdiction over both the plaintiff and the defendant. If the defendant lives outside the state, the plaintiff may serve the defendant with the process papers when the defendant appears in the state.

If the defendant lives outside the state and does not plan to reenter the state, the court may gain personal jurisdiction in other ways. Most states have a long-arm statute. This type of statute allows a state court to gain personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who (1) transacts business within the state, (2) commits a tort within the state, (3) commits a tort outside the state that causes an injury within the state, or (4) owns, uses, or possesses real property within the state.

If an out-of-state defendant caused an injury while driving inside the state, the court may gain personal jurisdiction over the defendant on the theory that the defendant consented to such jurisdiction by driving on the state's roads. Many states have statutes that create such implied consent to personal jurisdiction.

When the defendant is a corporation, the corporation is always subject to personal jurisdiction in the courts of the state in which it is incorporated. If the corporation has sufficient contacts in other states, courts in those states may hold that the out-of-state corporation has consented to personal jurisdiction through its contacts with the state. For example, a corporation that solicits business in other states or maintains offices in other states may be subject to suit in those states, even if the corporation is not headquartered or incorporated in those states. A corporation's transaction of business in a foreign state is a sufficient contact to establish personal jurisdiction.

In actions concerning real property located within the state, state courts may use additional means to gain personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants. A state court may gain personal jurisdiction over all parties, regardless of their physical location, in a dispute over the title to real property. This type of personal jurisdiction is called in rem, or "against the thing." Personal jurisdiction over all parties interested in the real property is gained not through the parties but through the presence of the land in the court's jurisdiction.

If a court cannot gain personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant, the plaintiff may be forced to sue the defendant in the state in which the defendant resides or in the state where the injury occurred. For example, a plaintiff who was injured outside his or her home state may have to file suit in the defendant's home state or in the state where the injury occurred if the defendant has no plans to enter the plaintiff's home state.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Courts of general jurisdiction have subject matter jurisdiction over the majority of civil claims, including actions involving torts, contracts, unpaid debt, and civil rights violations. Courts of general jurisdiction do not have subject matter jurisdiction over claims or controversies that are reserved for courts of special jurisdiction. For example, in a state that has a probate court, all claims involving wills and estates must be brought in the probate court, not in a court of general jurisdiction.

In some cases a claim must first be heard by a special administrative board before it can be heard by a court. For example, a workers' compensation claim in most states must be heard by a workers' compensation board before it can be heard in a court of general jurisdiction.

Another consideration in establishing subject matter jurisdiction is the amount in controversy. This is the total of all claims, counterclaims, and cross-claims in the suit. (A counterclaim is a claim by a defendant against a plaintiff; a cross-claim is a claim by a plaintiff against another plaintiff, or by a defendant against another defendant.) In most jurisdictions, if the amount in controversy does not exceed a certain limit, the case must be heard by a court other than a court of general jurisdiction. This court is usually called a small claims court. The rules in such a court limit the procedures available to the parties so that the court can obtain a simple and speedy resolution to the dispute.

Federal Civil Court Jurisdiction

Personal Jurisdiction

To obtain personal jurisdiction over the parties, a federal court follows the procedural rules of the state in which it sits. For example, a federal court in Michigan follows the Michigan state court rules governing personal jurisdiction. The court examines the usual factors in establishing personal jurisdiction, such as the physical location of the parties, the reach of the state's long-arm statute, any consent to personal jurisdiction by the defendant, or the location of real property in a dispute over real property.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

In some cases a plaintiff may file suit in federal court. These cases are limited to (1) claims arising from the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes ( federal question jurisdiction), (2) claims brought by or against the federal government, and (3) claims in which all opposing parties live in different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000 (diversity jurisdiction). A federal court obtains subject matter jurisdiction over a case if the case meets one or more of these three requirements.

Claims arising from the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes

Federal question jurisdiction is covered in 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331. This statute provides that federal district courts have "original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Some claims are expressly identified as federal in the Constitution. These claims include those involving ambassadors and consuls or public ministers, admiralty and maritime claims, and claims made by or against the federal government. Claims that are based on federal law also may be filed in federal court. An action against the federal government based on the negligence of a federal employee, for example, is authorized by the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 842 [28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(b), 2674]).

Some cases may combine federal and state issues. In such cases no clear test exists to determine whether a party may file suit in or remove a suit to federal court. Generally, federal courts will decline jurisdiction if a claim is based predominantly on state law. For example, assume that a plaintiff is embroiled in a property dispute with a neighbor. The plaintiff files suit against the neighbor, alleging state-law claims of nuisance, trespass, breach of contract, and assault. A state official advises the plaintiff that the property belongs to the neighbor (the defendant). If the plaintiff sues the state official in the same suit, alleging a constitutional violation such as the uncompensated taking of property, a federal court may refuse jurisdiction because the case involves predominantly state law.

Federal courts may decline jurisdiction on other grounds if a state court has concurrent jurisdiction. When they do so, they are said to abstain, because they are refraining from exercising their jurisdiction. Federal courts tend to abstain from cases that require the interpretation of state law, if those cases can be decided by state courts. Federal courts abstain to avoid answering unnecessary constitutional questions, to avoid conflict with state courts, and to avoid making errors in determining the meaning of state laws.

Claims brought by or against the federal government

Generally, the United States may sue in federal court if its claim is based on federal law. For example, if the federal government seeks to seize the property of a defendant in a drug case, it must base the action on the federal forfeiture statute, not on the forfeiture statute of the state in which the property lies.

Generally, state and federal governments have sovereign immunity, which means that they may not be sued. However, state and federal governments may consent to suit. On the federal level, Congress has removed the government's immunity for injuries resulting from the negligent and, in some cases, intentional conduct of federal agencies, federal officers, and other federal employees (60 Stat. 842 [28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(b), 2674, 2680]). Generally, the federal government is liable only for injuries resulting from the performance of official government duties.

If Congress has not waived federal immunity to certain suits, a person may nevertheless file suit against the agents, officers, or employees personally. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that federal agents, officers, and employees who violate constitutional rights may be sued for damages in federal court (Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 [1971]).

Claims in which all opposing parties live in different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000

Diversity cases provide federal courts with subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332. A civil case qualifies as a federal diversity case if all opposing parties live in separate states and the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000. If the opposing parties live in the same state, the case may still qualify for federal subject matter jurisdiction if there is some remaining citizenship diversity between parties. For example, assume that a person is acting as a stakeholder by holding property for a third party. If ownership of the property is in dispute, the stakeholder may join the defendants in the suit to avoid liability to any of the parties. Such a case may be filed in federal court if a defendant lives in a different state, even if one of the defendants lives in the same state as the stakeholder or in the same state as the other defendants.

State and Federal Criminal Court Jurisdiction

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction in a criminal case is established when the defendant is accused of committing a crime in the geographic area in which the court sits. If a crime results in federal charges, the federal court that sits in the state where the offense was committed has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. In a conspiracy case, the defendants may face prosecution in any jurisdiction in which a conspiratorial act took place. This can include a number of states if at least one conspirator crossed state lines or if the conspiracy involved criminal acts in more than one state. Kidnapping is another crime that can establish personal jurisdiction in courts in more than one state, if it involves crossing state lines.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

In criminal cases the question of jurisdiction is relatively simple. Subject matter jurisdiction is easily decided because criminal courts or the courts of general jurisdiction have automatic subject matter jurisdiction over criminal cases. In most states minor crimes may be tried in one court, and more serious crimes in another. In Idaho, for example, criminal cases are tried in the district courts. However, misdemeanor cases may be assigned by the district court to a magistrate (Idaho Code § 1-2208 [1996]). (A magistrate is a judge who is authorized to hear minor civil cases and decide criminal matters without a jury.)

The major question in criminal subject matter jurisdiction is whether the charges are federal or state. If the charges allege a violation of federal criminal law, the defendant will be tried in a federal court located in the state in which the offense was committed. If the charges allege a violation of state law, the defendant will face prosecution in a trial court that has jurisdiction over the area in which the offense was committed. If a crime violates both federal and state law, the defendant may be tried twice: once in state court, and once in federal court.

Venue

Venue is similar to, but separate from, jurisdiction. The venue of a case is the physical location of the courthouse in which the case is tried. If more than one court has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over a case, the court that first receives the case can send the case, upon request of one of the parties, to a court in another jurisdiction. Unlike jurisdiction, venue does not involve a determination of a court's inherent authority to hear a case.

See: diversity of citizenship.

IN BRIEF: The authority to apply the law.

It was outside of her jurisdiction to decide whether he had to go to school or not.

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

Dansk (Danish)
n. - jurisdiktion, domsmyndighed, domsret, kompetence, retskreds, embedsområde

Nederlands (Dutch)
jurisdictie

Français (French)
n. - compétence, juridiction

Deutsch (German)
n. - Gerichtsbarkeit, Zuständigkeit, Zuständigkeitsbereich

Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - δικαιοδοσία, αρμοδιότητα, όρια δικαιοδοσίας ή αρμοδιότητας

Italiano (Italian)
giurisdizione

Português (Portuguese)
n. - jurisdição (f)

Русский (Russian)
судопроизводство, юрисдикция, компетенция

Español (Spanish)
n. - jurisdicción, competencia

Svenska (Swedish)
n. - jurisdiktion, rättskipning, domsrätt, domsaga

中文（简体） (Chinese (Simplified))
司法权, 管辖权, 审判权

中文（繁體） (Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 司法權, 管轄權, 審判權

한국어 (Korean)
n. - 재판권 , 법역

日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 司法権, 支配権, 管轄区域

العربيه (Arabic)
‏(الاسم) سلطه قضائيه, صلاحيه او اختصاص القضاء‏

עברית (Hebrew)
n. - ‮תחום שיפוט, סמכות משפטית, סמכות חוקית‬

If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.

To select your translation preferences click here.