THE COURT SYSTEMS

Chapter 2

Chapter Issues

• Overview of the Saudi and American court system

• How an injured party can seek relief in the courts

• Jurisdiction: Which court has the power and the authority to decide the case?

Organization of the Court Systems

• Saudi court systems was created by King Abdul Aziz in 1932.

• Court systems have

- Administrative tribunals • Disputes on modern regulations

– General Sharia courts: Courts of Original Jurisdiction• Where disputes are initially brought and tried• Generally known as trial courts

– Summary Sharia Courts:• Where lower court decisions are reviewed

The Sharia Court System

• Sharia Court System– Courts of original jurisdiction – Judges and lawyers form part of the ulema.– Trial courts deal in issues of fact

• General courts and summary courts– Deals with simple cases.– Cases adjudicated by single judges– 3 judge panels deal in issues of criminal cases• Appellate courts

- sit in Mecca and Riyadh and review decisions for compliance with Sharia.

• Committees – non sharia govt tribunals – forgery/bribery/commercial and labour law.

Judges• Judges are called Qadis.• Passes judgements based on

legal opinions from muftis, concerned members of ulema.

• Lifetime appointment• Judiciary proper( body of

Qadis) have about 700 Qadis.• Job security guarantees that

judges are independent and free from political pressure

Judges

• Judges• Judges hold a post-graduate qualification from an

Islamic university recognized by the Saudi government generally the Institute of Higher Judiciary in Riyadh.

• Judges chosen by variety of methods• Judges serve fixed terms

US Organization of the Court Systems

• Both state and federal court systems have– Lower courts: Courts of Original Jurisdiction

• Where disputes are initially brought and tried• Generally known as trial courts• Look at issues of fact

– Appellate Courts: Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction• Where lower court decisions are reviewed• Look at issues of law

The Federal Court System

• Federal District Court – Courts of original

jurisdiction – Use juries or judge as

“trier of fact”– Trial courts deal in

issues of fact• US Court of Appeals

– 12 courts– Usual rule: There is the

right to appeal to this court

– 3 judge panels deal in issues of law

• Specialized Federal Courts– Limited jurisdiction– I.e., Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit--takes appeals from

• US District Court in patent, trademark and copyright cases

• US Claims Court • US Court of

International Trade

• Administrative rules of US Patent & Trademark Office

Federal Judges• Federal judges are

nominated by the President• Confirmed by a majority vote

in US Senate• Lifetime appointment• May be removed from office

only if Congress impeaches them (intricate impeachment process and rarely happens)

• Job security guarantees that judges are independent and free from political pressure

The Typical State Court System of US

• State court of “Original Jurisdiction”– Where case is first brought; deals in issues of fact– Usually called District Court (but in NY, is called

the “Supreme Court”)• State court of Appellate Jurisdiction

– Deals with appeals and issues of law– Usually called Court of Appeals – Can have different names (District Court of

Appeals in FL; Appellate Division in NY• State Supreme Court

– Second appellate review dealing w/ issues of law– Usually called Supreme Court (but in NY, is called

“Court of Appeals”)

The Federal Court System The US Supreme Court

• Highest court in the country• Appellate review court• Cases usually heard by 9 justices• Reviews cases from

– US District Courts– US Courts of Appeals– Highest Courts of the States

• Review is through Writ of Certiorari– If writ not granted, lower court decision is final

“The French Court System” (International Perspective)

• France is a civil law country (typical of Europe)• Written (code) law used rather than judge-made law• Court System

– Cour de Cessation (Supreme Court)– Cour d’appel (Court of Appeals)– Tribunal d’Instance (Court of general jurisdiction)

• Appellate process in France is very different from US– Cour de Cessation: no authority to create

judgments– Cour de Cessation: rejects an appeal or

invalidates the decision & returns case to Cour d’appel for reconsideration

“London’s Commercial Court”

• In international contracts, parties can state how future disputes will be resolved either in the contract or when disputes arise

• The Commercial Court in London is a popular forum:– Trials handled by one judge– No jury– Trials usually occur within 1 year of dispute– Finished rather quickly– Loser pays winner’s attorney’s fees– English courts are respected; judgment more likely to be

enforced in other countries– Remedies have been innovative & relevant to commercial

matters

Jurisdiction

• Jurisdiction: Right of a court to hear & decide the case

• A number of courts may have jurisdiction over a given case

• Need jurisdiction over the subject matter• Need jurisdiction over either persons or

property• If jurisdiction is lacking, judgment is null

& void

Subject Matter JurisdictionState Courts

• A particular court resolves a particular subject matter:– Wills & Trusts: Probate Court– Divorces, Child Custody: Domestic Court– Municipal Matters: Municipal Court– Small Claims Court - Limited claims of usually

$5000 or less, sometimes up to $7,500 will be heard• If there is not a particular subject matter, case first

goes to general trial court• Courts of original jurisdiction--where case is first

brought• Courts of appellate jurisdiction--where lower court

decisions are reviewed• If there is no jury, judge decides the facts• General right to appeal to at least one higher court

Subject Matter JurisdictionFederal Courts

• Federal court jurisdiction is derived from the US Constitution

• Federal courts may hear cases involving a federal questions– Cases in which the US is a party to the suit– Cases involving citizens of different states

• Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction• Amount in Controversy is for more than

$75,000• No $ amount for cases involving federal law

Personal Jurisdiction In Personam Jurisdiction

• Over the person, usually through

– Summons through service of process or substituted service

– Residency– Doing business in

the state– Submission to the

jurisdiction

• Out of state defendants

– Jurisdiction is more difficult

– Serve them while in the state

– May not “trick” them to get into the state for service of process

Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Business Defendants

• Long-arm Statutes– Aimed at non-

resident businesses– Protects states’

citizens from business defendants who do business in the state and then leave the state

– See Exhibit 2.5( leave from this slide onwards)

Cyberlaw: “The Long Arm of the Internet”

• When does a web site advertiser in nationwide sales become subject to another state’s jurisdiction?

• Generally personal jurisdiction occurs when defendant is engaged in business in a state.– i.e. Amazon.com does active business in every state by selling

online, and is subject jurisdiction in those states• No jurisdiction if contact with a forum is “only informational”, even

if the web site is interactive• No jurisdiction if web site only gives information about sales,

allows customers to download forms, and provides e-mail address for inquiries

• Unclear: How much activity must occur with residents in a state for the web seller to be subject to jurisdiction in the buyer’s state?– Ex: One low cost item is not “active business”, esp. if buyer

initiates the contact.– Ex: One spam e-mail sent out of state – no jurisdiction

Territorial Jurisdiction “Minimum Contacts”

• Sales office “transacting business” within the state

• Landmark case--International Shoe Company v. Washington ( Supreme Court, 1945)

• Legal contact -- legal “nexus”• Examples of “minimum contacts” within a

state– Sales representative(s)– Selling product– Advertising– Placing product in specific markets

Blimka v. My Web Wholesaler, LLC

• My Web Wholesalers (of Maine) does business on the Internet.

• Blimka (of Idaho) surfed the net, found My Web and called DePalma, a My Web manager.

• Ordered 26,500 pairs of jeans for $20,935 and wired money.

• Shipment of 16,000 jeans arrived. Blimka called My Web to complain about quality. No satisfaction.

• Blimka sued My Web and DePalma for fraud in Idaho court. Process was served on them in Maine.

• No response by defendants; court issued a judgment against both defendants, saying it had jurisdiction. They appealed.

Blimka v. My Web Wholesaler, LLC

• HELD: Affirmed. Idaho court has jurisdiction.• Defendants’ actions of fraud invoked the use

of the Idaho long-arm statute.• Defendants’ purposeful false

misrepresentation directed into Idaho created minimum contacts with Idaho that does not offend 14th Amendment “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”.

• Blimka awarded attorney fees and costs.

Exclusive Jurisdiction(Over certain cases. In other disputes

jurisdiction may be either in federal or state court systems.)

• Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over some matters

• Examples:– Federal crimes– Bankruptcy – Patents – Copyrights– Federal questions

• Congress can specify by statute exclusive jurisdiction in federal courts

• State courts have exclusive jurisdiction over some matters

• Examples:– Divorce– Adoption– Matters controlled by

state government• Supremacy of federal

law—state jurisdiction cannot infringe on federal jurisdiction

Applying Appropriate Law in State Court

• Incidents of the case take place in more than one state

• Conflict of laws or choice of law rules apply

• Rules vary according to nature of dispute, i.e.– Contract cases: Laws of state

in which contract was made will be applied

– Tort cases: Laws of state where tort takes place

• General rule: Laws apply for state that has the most “significant interest”

• See Miller v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation

Miller v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation

• Pilgrim’s Pride (PP) hired Simmons Mill to build a bin on a feed mill at PP facility in Arkansas. No written agreement.

• Applewhite, a Simmons employee, killed when a roof he was working on at the PP facility collapsed under him.

• Simmons, a Texas company, fulfilled obligations to Applewhite’s heirs under Texas workers’ compensation laws.

• Heirs of Applewhite (Miller), sued PP, claiming negligence by PP caused Applewhite’s death.

• PP provided out-of-court settlement for Miller to end the claim.

• PP then sued Simmons in federal district court of Arkansas to seek indemnification for money PP paid to Miller.

• Simmons asked court to dismiss the PP lawsuit.

Miller v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp.

• District court held that Texas law should govern PP’s claim, and that Texas law prohibits indemnification unless a written agreement required one party to indemnify another. This was not the case here.

• District Court applied the five-factor balancing test (Leflar’s approach) adopted by Arkansas Supreme Court in determining which law would apply in this case.

• District Court dismissed PP’s claim. PP appealed saying Arkansas law, not Texas law, should govern.

Miller v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp.

• HELD: Arkansas has not discarded the lex loci delicti (the law of the place of the wrong) rule.

• However, must look at lex loci delicti with the Leflar 5-factors test:1. Predictability of result (does not weigh heavily in this case)2. Maintenance of interstate and international order (not at issue here)3. Simplification of the judicial task (not at issue here)4. Advancement of the forum’s governmental interest (This is

important to protect a state’s interest of its residents .) --Applewhite was a resident of Texas and compensated under Texas compensation law.--If Applewhite had been an Arkansas resident, then Arkansas law might apply to the workers compensation scheme. But he wasn’t. There is no state interest in applying Arkansas law to the Texas workers compensation scheme.

5. Application of the better rule of law (aimed at avoiding application of unfair or archaic laws; this does not occur if Texas law applies.)

• Affirmed. Texas law should govern the case.

Venue

• Venue: Appropriate geographical location of the court that has jurisdiction

• In controversial or well-publicized cases, defendants will ask for change of venue

• Doctrine of forum non conveniens - a special venue doctrine: Either party may request a change of venue to a more convenient court that could hear the case. Court will consider such issues as – Where actions of case

take place– Where witnesses are

located– Unfair burdens to parties