COURTS THE ENTIRE VOL IN ORDER by Nancy Saint-Paul, J.D., and John R. Wierzbicki, Jr., M.B.A., J.D., of theNational Legal Research Group, Inc. TOPIC SCOPE Scope of Topic: This article discusses the definitions and nature of state courts and distinguishes them from other governmental bodies. The article covers the creation, organization, and classification of state courts, state court records, times and places for holding court, and the functions, powers, and duties of state courts. The article also treats the various types and classifications of jurisdiction of state courts, the doctrine of forum non conveniens used by state courts, and the effect of judicial decisions and precedents made by state courts. Federal Aspects: The organization, nature, and procedures of federal courts are covered in 32-32B Am Jur 2d, Federal Courts. Federal law is discussed in this article to the extent it affects state courts. Treated Elsewhere: Appellate jurisdiction, procedure, and review, see 4, 5 Am Jur 2d, Appellate Review Federal courts, generally, see 32-32B Am Jur 2d, Federal Practice and Procedure Grand juries, see 38 Am Jur 2d, Grand Jury Judges, see 46 Am Jur 2d, Judges Juries, see 47 Am Jur 2d, Jury Jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases, see 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 336-360 Injunctions against the institution or maintenance of judicial proceedings, see 42 Am Jur 2d, Injunctions §§ 201-237 Proof of courts jurisdiction where its judgment is asserted as res judicata or as having collateral estoppel effect, see 47 Am Jur 2d, Judgments § 723 Tax Court of the United States, see 34 Am Jur 2d, Federal Taxation Venue, see 77 Am Jur 2d, Venue RESEARCH REFERENCES Annotation References: ALR Digest: Courts ALR Index: Court Records; Courtroom or Courthouse; Courts; Discretion of Court; Docket and Calendar of Court; Jurisdiction; Overruled Decisions; Precedents; Term of Court Practice References: 1 Am Jur Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Abatement, Revival, and Stay ; 8A Am Jur Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Dismissal, Discontinuance, and Nonsuit ; 7B Am Jur Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Courts ; 19A Am Jur Pr & Pl Forms (Rev), Pleading 3 Am Jur Trials 553, Selecting the Forum–Plaintiffs Position; 3 Am Jur Trials 611, Selecting the Forum–Defendants Position; 5 Am Jur Trials 1, Whom to Sue–Multiple Defendants Insta-Cite(R): Cases and annotations referred to herein can be further researched through the Insta-Cite(R) citation verification service. Use Insta-Cite to check citations for Bluebook styling, parallel references, prior and later history, and annotation references. I. IN GENERAL [1] Research References ALR Digest: Courts § 1 ALR Index: Courts; Judicial Officers § 1 Nature and distinctions • Definition: A court is an organ of the government, consisting of one or more persons authorized to administer justice. 1 Although a court exercises its functions through a judge or judges, 2 it is a continuous institution regardless of changes in the personnel of its judges. 3 Whether a governmental agency is a court is determined by its organizational character, purpose, and function. 4 Although administrative bodies may hear and determine facts, and in this respect perform duties judicial in nature, they are not courts; 5 courts may be distinguished from administrative agencies in that courts are part of the judicial, whereas administrative agencies are part of the executive, branch of the government. 6 In addition, administrative agencies do not have the power to punish contempts, which is one of the inherent powers of a court. 7 Furthermore, while administrative agencies are prospectively oriented, setting down rules to be followed based on laws passed by the legislature, the function of courts is much narrower, usually addressing themselves to problems after the fact. 8 Although judges are sometimes called the court, 9 the court is a broader concept, encompassing more than merely the judge or judges of the court. 10 In construing a statute using the word court, the legislative intention, as understood by the court called upon to decide the question, is controlling as to whether reference is made by the statute to a court, to a judge, or both to a court and a judge. 11 Whether a function referred to in a statute using either the term court or the term judge is to be performed by the court or by the judge is generally to be determined by the character of that function rather than by the word used by the statute. 12 Similarly, although a court may use various kinds of officials in carrying out its administrative functions, including clerks, 13 sheriffs, 14 bailiffs, 15 and in certain cases, commissioners, masters, or referees, 16 these officials generally do not perform adjudicative functions. 17 The term court is frequently used to refer to both the judge and the jury in a jury trial. 18 Where a statute uses the word court, it is a matter of construction of the legislative intent as to whether that term refers to the judge alone or to both judge and jury. 19 Footnotes Footnote 1. Wood v Circuit Court of Warren County (ED Tenn) 331 F Supp 1245; Vaughan v Veasey (Super) 50 Del 133, 125 A2d 251; State ex rel. Kiser, Cohn & Shumaker, Inc. v Sammons, 223 Ind 27, 57 NE2d 587; State v Horn, 336 Mo 524, 79 SW2d 1044; Wagenhorst v Philadelphia Life Ins. Co., 358 Pa 55, 55 A2d 762. Footnote 2. State ex rel. Harp v Vanderburgh Circuit Court, 227 Ind 353, 85 NE2d 254, 11 ALR2d 1108. Footnote 3. May v Kearney, 145 Neb 475, 17 NW2d 448; State ex rel. Phillips v Carter, 186 Okla 571, 99 P2d 1025. Footnote 4. State ex rel. Jordan v Sims, 134 W Va 167, 58 SE2d 650. Footnote 5. Rommell v Walsh, 127 Conn 16, 15 A2d 6; In re Kinloch, 362 Mo 434, 242 SW2d 59. Footnote 6. Green v Thompson, 17 Ariz App 587, 499 P2d 715 (holding that the Superior Court Commissioner was part of the judicial branch). Footnote 7. Hernreich v Quinn, 350 Mo 770, 168 SW2d 1054. Footnote 8. York v Commonwealth (Ky App) 815 SW2d 415. Footnote 9. State ex rel. Harp v Vanderburgh Circuit Court, 227 Ind 353, 85 NE2d 254, 11 ALR2d 1108; State v Horn, 336 Mo 524, 79 SW2d 1044. Footnote 10. American Life Ins. Co. v Powell, 259 Ala 70, 65 So 2d 516, app dismd 260 Ala 574, 71 So 2d 872; Vaughan v Veasey (Super) 50 Del 133, 125 A2d 251; Cobb County v Campbell, 256 Ga 519, 350 SE2d 466; State ex rel. Harp v Vanderburgh Circuit Court, 227 Ind 353, 85 NE2d 254, 11 ALR2d 1108; Peisker v Chavez, 46 NM 159, 123 P2d 726; In re Independent Order of Sons of Italy Club Liquor License, 161 Pa Super 448, 55 A2d 546; Welch v Welch (Tex Civ App Dallas) 369 SW2d 434. Footnote 11. American Life Ins. Co. v Powell, 259 Ala 70, 65 So 2d 516, app dismd 260 Ala 574, 71 So 2d 872; State v Boston, 234 Iowa 1047, 14 NW2d 676; Ohio Loan & Discount Co. v Benedum, 3 Ohio Misc 1, 32 Ohio Ops 2d 124, 209 NE2d 500. Footnote 12. Broadfoot v Florence, 253 Ala 455, 45 So 2d 311, appeal after remand 254 Ala 704, 48 So 2d 884; King County v United Pacific Ins. Co., 72 Wash 2d 604, 434 P2d 554. Footnote 13. State ex rel. Steers v Criminal Court of Lake County, 232 Ind 443, 112 NE2d 445, reh den 232 Ind 451, 113 NE2d 44. Footnote 14. State ex rel. Steers v Criminal Court of Lake County, 232 Ind 443, 112 NE2d 445, reh den 232 Ind 451, 113 NE2d 44. Footnote 15. Fidelity Finance Co. v Harris (Cuyahoga Co) 102 Ohio App 497, 3 Ohio Ops 2d 45, 71 Ohio L Abs 309, 126 NE2d 812. Footnote 16. Green v Thompson, 17 Ariz App 587, 499 P2d 715; Raiford v Raiford, 193 Va 221, 68 SE2d 888. Footnote 17. State ex rel. Steers v Criminal Court of Lake County, 232 Ind 443, 112 NE2d 445, reh den 232 Ind 451, 113 NE2d 44. A state statute which authorizes a court commissioner to exercise the power of a judge with respect to traffic infraction cases is a valid exercise of the power given to the legislature by a state constitutional provision authorizing appointment of commissioners to perform subordinate judicial duties. People v Lucas (2nd Dist) 82 Cal App 3d 47, 147 Cal Rptr 235. A commissioner, master, or referee appointed by a court to aid it in the adjudication of a particular case is not a court when performing the functions assigned to it, although the court may adopt its conclusion in its decision. Hoffecker v Hoffecker, 200 Va 119, 104 SE2d 771, 76 ALR2d 412. Footnote 18. Broadfoot v Florence, 253 Ala 455, 45 So 2d 311, appeal after remand 254 Ala 704, 48 So 2d 884; Banks v Watrous, 134 Conn 592, 59 A2d 723, 4 ALR2d 286; Vaughan v Veasey (Super) 50 Del 133, 125 A2d 251; Welch v Welch (Tex Civ App Dallas) 369 SW2d 434. Footnote 19. Vaughan v Veasey (Super) 50 Del 133, 125 A2d 251; State v Ceja, 53 Nev 272, 298 P 658, reh den 53 Nev 281, 2 P2d 124. II. CREATION, ORGANIZATION, AND ABOLITION [2-7] A. Creation [2, 3] Research References ALR Digest: Courts §§ 214, 269 ALR Index: Courts § 2 Generally A state constitution may expressly provide for the establishment of a system of courts by declaring that the states judicial power is vested in certain kinds of courts, 20 or by listing certain types of courts and providing that other courts, or other inferior courts, may be created by legislation or by law. 21 A state constitution may also vest exclusive power in the legislature to create courts, 22 and, subject to any constitutional limitation, the legislature of a state has the power to create courts, including courts not provided for in the constitution. 23 A legislature may also delegate its power to create courts to another governmental body; where it has done so, a court may not be created through local ordinance, 24 although the legislature may adopt a scheme whereby a municipality may elect to establish a municipal court by resolution. 25 Footnotes Footnote 20. Porter v Calhoun County Bd. of Commrs, 252 Ga 446, 314 SE2d 649. Footnote 21. State v Keller (Tenn Crim) 813 SW2d 146; Kelly v State (Tex Crim) 724 SW2d 42; Woodmansee v Smith, 129 Vt 284, 276 A2d 617, habeas corpus den 130 Vt 383, 296 A2d 182. The state constitution authorizes the legislature to establish municipal, police, or mayors courts and to specify the method by which those judges must be selected. Hubby v Carpenter, 177 W Va 78, 350 SE2d 706. Footnote 22. Lee v State, 183 Misc 615, 49 NYS2d 836; Behrle v Beam, 6 Ohio St 3d 41, 6 Ohio BR 61, 451 NE2d 237 (not followed on other grounds by M&T Constr. & Excavating, Inc. v Koe-Krompecher (Ohio App, Gallia Co) 1991 Ohio App LEXIS 5868); Kelly v State (Tex Crim) 724 SW2d 42; Hubby v Carpenter, 177 W Va 78, 350 SE2d 706. Footnote 23. Woodmansee v Smith, 129 Vt 284, 276 A2d 617, habeas corpus den 130 Vt 383, 296 A2d 182. Footnote 24. Medlen v State (La) 418 So 2d 618; State ex rel. Boston Heights v Petsche (Summit Co) 27 Ohio App 3d 106, 27 Ohio BR 136, 499 NE2d 1250, app dismd. Footnote 25. Twigg v Aberdeen Municipal Court (Wash App) 50 Wash App 594, 749 P2d 745, review den 110 Wash 2d 1029. § 3 De facto courts • Definition: When a court is organized under color of law, that is, when its creation is authorized by law but the proceedings creating it are irregular or defective, it is a de facto court. 26 The judgments and proceedings of such a de facto court are valid 27 and are not open to collateral attack. 28 Footnotes Footnote 26. Tumbs v State, 290 Ark 214, 718 SW2d 105. As to de facto judges, see 46 Am Jur 2d, Judges §§ 242-247. Footnote 27. Watson v State, 291 Ark 358, 724 SW2d 478, reh den 291 Ark 371A, 727 SW2d 383, post-conviction proceeding 295 Ark 616, 752 SW2d 240. Footnote 28. Walker v Arkansas Dept of Human Services, 291 Ark 43, 722 SW2d 558; Tumbs v State, 290 Ark 214, 718 SW2d 105. The conviction of a criminal defendant who was convicted in an invalidly created department of a court was allowed to stand where the defendant conceded that the judge had de facto authority. In re Application of Eng, 113 Wash 2d 178, 776 P2d 1336. B. Organization [4, 5] Research References ALR Digest: Courts ALR Index: Courts § 4 Generally A state is generally free to provide for any system of courts as it chooses 29 and to reorganize its system of courts. 30 The power to organize courts also generally includes the power to establish judgeships in the courts. 31 Footnotes Footnote 29. Tumey v Ohio, 273 US 510, 71 L Ed 749, 47 S Ct 437, 5 Ohio L Abs 159, 5 Ohio L Abs 185, 50 ALR 1243. Footnote 30. County of Allegheny v Commonwealth, 517 Pa 65, 534 A2d 760, motion den 534 Pa 8, 626 A2d 492 (holding that the state may require its judicial system to be unified, so that judicial resources and staffing is proportionately similar in all the courts). The state supreme courts order appointing the overseer and his directive were consistent with the courts statutory authority to alter the duties of president judges, as well as the courts general supervisory and administrative authority over the unified judicial system. In re Blake, 527 Pa 456, 593 A2d 1267, later proceeding (CA3 Pa) 953 F2d 68. Footnote 31. State ex rel. Madden v Crawford, 207 Or 76, 295 P2d 174. § 5 Regulation of jurisdiction; establishment of territorial limits Subject to any constitutional limitation, 32 the legislative power to organize courts includes the power to regulate their jurisdictions. 33 The legislature may establish and change the limts of a courts territorial jurisdiction, 34 in the absence of a state constitution prescribing the establishment of territorial divisions for jurisdictional purposes. 35 The legislature generally also may divide established courts. 36 Where the state constitution itself divides the state into judicial districts, establishes the territorial limits of each district, and also provides specifically for the manner in which the districts may be rearranged by the legislature, the legislature may not validly change the territorial jurisdiction of a district except in the manner prescribed by the constitution. 37 Footnotes Footnote 32. Godchaux Sugars, Inc. v Ockman, 225 La 599, 73 So 2d 577 (the legislature is powerless to abridge or enlarge the jurisdiction conferred upon certain courts by the constitution). Footnote 33. Tumey v Ohio, 273 US 510, 71 L Ed 749, 47 S Ct 437, 5 Ohio L Abs 159, 5 Ohio L Abs 185, 50 ALR 1243; Hutchison v Ross, 262 NY 381, 187 NE 65, 89 ALR 1007, reh den 262 NY 643, 188 NE 102, 89 ALR 1023; Rhode Island State Police Lodge No. 25 v State (RI) 485 A2d 1245, later proceeding (RI) 544 A2d 133. Footnote 34. Brown v Clark, 47 Wyo 216, 34 P2d 17. The general assembly may vest the municipal court with jurisdiction over state misdemeanor offenses, preempting enforcement of such state criminal laws in state courts. Kolker v State, 260 Ga 240, 391 SE2d 391. The grant by the constitution to the legislature of the power to change the jurisdiction of the courts includes the power to determine how many and what kinds of courts are required for the administration of justice and includes the power to fix the limits of each courts jurisdiction. State v Keller (Tenn Crim) 813 SW2d 146. Footnote 35. Tanner v Beverly Country Club, Inc., 217 La 1043, 47 So 2d 905. Footnote 36. Ex parte Jackson (Ala) 516 So 2d 768, on remand (Ala Crim App) 516 So 2d 774, subsequent app (Ala) 516 So 2d 774; Citizens Bank of Batesville v Estate of Pettyjohn, 282 Ark 222, 667 SW2d 657; Cobb County v Campbell, 256 Ga 519, 350 SE2d 466; Nemeth v Banhalmi (1st Dist) 125 Ill App 3d 938, 81 Ill Dec 175, 466 NE2d 977. There is no constitutional mandate requiring the states judicial circuits to be substantially equal in population; the power to correct the imbalance in judicial circuits rests exclusively in the general assembly. OShields v McLeod, 257 SC 477, 186 SE2d 408. Footnote 37. Tanner v Beverly Country Club, Inc., 217 La 1043, 47 So 2d 905. C. Abolition [6, 7] Research References ALR Digest: Courts § 265 ALR Index: Courts § 6 Generally In general, the power to abolish courts is generally coextensive with the power to create courts. Thus, a court created by the constitution can be abolished only by a constitutional provision, 38 and a court created by legislative act may be abolished only by another legislative act, subject to constitutional limitations. 39 In the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary, where a court is established under a statute providing for courts in districts of a specified minimum and maximum population, the growth of the district in population beyond the specified maximum does not in itself cause the court to cease to exist. 40 Footnotes Footnote 38. § 9. Footnote 39. Neff v Board of County Commrs, 166 Ohio St 360, 2 Ohio Ops 2d 261, 142 NE2d 658. Footnote 40. Ex parte Haley, 202 Okla 101, 210 P2d 653, 12 ALR2d 416. § 7 By repeal of basic statute A court created by a statute may be abolished by the repeal of the statute which created it; any action a court takes after its legislative abolishment is the action of a court without jurisdiction and is therefore legally void. 41 A statutory court may be abolished by a later constitutional enactment which effectively repeals its basic statute. 42 Footnotes Footnote 41. Ft. Smith Gas Co. v Kincannon, 202 Ark 216, 150 SW2d 968. Footnote 42. Porter v Calhoun County Bd. of Commrs, 252 Ga 446, 314 SE2d 649 (holding that the enactment of a section of the state constitution that vested judicial power of the state exclusively in certain enumerated courts, and did not list small claims courts, effectively abolished county small claims courts that had previously been created by statute). III. CLASSIFICATION OF COURTS [8-15] Research References ALR Digest: Courts §§ 214, 214.5 ALR Index: Courts § 8 Generally; courts of record Courts are classified according to various criteria; for example, in all jurisdictions, courts are classified as trial courts or appellate courts. 43 A court that maintains a permanent record of its acts and judicial proceedings is a court of record. 44 Conversely, a court that is neither required to nor does enroll for permanent memorial its acts and proceedings is not a court of record. 45 The fact that a particular court is a court of record is significant in that a court of record is afforded a strong presumption as to the veracity of its records, 46 it is presumed to have had jurisdiction of the case adjudicated by it, and cannot have its records collaterally attacked 47 except in cases of fraud 48 or with regard to defects appearing on the face of the record. 49 Although a special court created by a legislature is presumed not to be a court of record unless the legislative act declares it to be such a court, 50 the statutory designation of a court as one of record is not necessarily determinative of whether it is actually a court of record for all legal purposes. 51 Footnotes Footnote 43. Buckman v United Mine Workers, 80 Wyo 199, 339 P2d 398, 44 BNA LRRM 2642, 37 CCH LC ¶ 65489, reh den 80 Wyo 216, 342 P2d 236, 44 BNA LRRM 2646, 37 CCH LC ¶ 65625, stating that the function of a trial court, or court of original jurisdiction, is to determine the facts and the law in a case in the first instance, whereas an appellate court is generally a court of review, except in cases in which it has original jurisdiction or where a constitutional question is at issue. As to juvenile courts, generally, see 47 Am Jur 2d, Juvenile Courts and Delinquent and Dependent Children. As to courts-martial, see 53 Am Jur 2d, Military and Civil Defense. As to admiralty courts, see 2 Am Jur 2d, Admiralty. Footnote 44. State ex rel. Davis v Achor, 225 Ind 319, 75 NE2d 154; In re Marriage of Case, 18 Kan App 2d 457, 856 P2d 169, appeal after remand 19 Kan App 2d 883, 879 P2d 632; Page v Turcott, 179 Tenn 491, 167 SW2d 350; Chrisman v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 178 Tenn 321, 157 SW2d 831 (disapproved on other grounds by Howard v State, 217 Tenn 556, 399 SW2d 738); Brighton v Charleston, 114 Vt 316, 44 A2d 628. Footnote 45. Dekalb County v Deason, 221 Ga 237, 144 SE2d 446. Footnote 46. State ex rel. Nassau v Kohn (Mo) 731 SW2d 840; Page v Turcott, 179 Tenn 491, 167 SW2d 350. Footnote 47. State ex rel. Davis v Achor, 225 Ind 319, 75 NE2d 154; In re Marriage of Case, 18 Kan App 2d 457, 856 P2d 169, appeal after remand 19 Kan App 2d 883, 879 P2d 632; Ex parte Massengale, 67 Okla Crim 181, 93 P2d 41; New York, N. H. & H. R.R. v Superior Court, 83 RI 292, 115 A2d 534; Baumgarten v Frost, 143 Tex 533, 186 SW2d 982, 159 ALR 428; State v Underwood, 130 W Va 166, 43 SE2d 61. The opinion of a court cannot be used to refute the duly entered findings upon the journal, through which the court speaks. Weinberger v Weinberger (Summit Co) 43 Ohio App 2d 129, 72 Ohio Ops 2d 325, 334 NE2d 514, motion overr. Footnote 48. Chrisman v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 178 Tenn 321, 157 SW2d 831 (disapproved on other grounds by Howard v State, 217 Tenn 556, 399 SW2d 738). Footnote 49. Page v Turcott, 179 Tenn 491, 167 SW2d 350. Footnote 50. Chrisman v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 178 Tenn 321, 157 SW2d 831 (disapproved on other grounds by Howard v State, 217 Tenn 556, 399 SW2d 738). A city police court was designated by statute as a court of record, requiring the judge to keep records of proceedings. St. Matthews v Voice of St. Matthews, Inc. (Ky) 519 SW2d 811 (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Friend v Rees (Ky App) 696 SW2d 325). Footnote 51. Bekurs v Bumper Serv., 271 Ala 110, 122 So 2d 727 (holding that a court may be considered a court of record for one purpose and not so for another purpose). § 9 Constitutional courts A court whose existence is specifically provided for in the state constitution is classified as a constitutional court. 52 Generally, the legislature has no power to impair the essential nature or jurisdiction of a constitutional court. 53 However, although a court is a constitutional court, since it is a court of limited power conferred on it by the legislature, its powers may be changed by the legislature 54 and the legislature may even abolish such a court. 55 Footnotes Footnote 52. State v Keller (Tenn Crim) 813 SW2d 146. Footnote 53. Bryan v Miller, 73 ND 487, 16 NW2d 275; Halltown Paperboard Co. v C. L. Robinson Corp., 150 W Va 624, 148 SE2d 721. Footnote 54. In re Breretons Estate, 355 Pa 45, 48 A2d 868. Footnote 55. State v Keller (Tenn Crim) 813 SW2d 146. As to the abolition of courts generally, see § 6. § 10 Superior and inferior courts While a superior court is a court that may hear appeals from a result reached by a court of original jurisdiction, 56 inferior courts are those courts whose judgment and decrees may be reviewed by an appellate tribunal, whether the tribunal is the circuit court or another appellate court. 57 The distinction between superior and inferior courts is sometimes treated as tantamount to the classification of courts as of general and limited jurisdiction. 58 Inferior courts have only limited jurisdiction, and may exercise only such powers as are directly conferred by legislative action. 59 Such a court is not presumed to have had jurisdiction over a matter, but instead must have its jurisdiction affirmatively shown by the record. 60 Footnotes Footnote 56. In re Petition of Vermeulen (Fla App D1) 122 So 2d 318; Bryan v Miller, 73 ND 487, 16 NW2d 275. The superior court did not have subject matter jurisdiction of a motion to hold the Department of Transportation in contempt on the ground that it failed to comply with an order to reinstate the respondent employee when it gave him another job title and moved him to a different location since the court must make findings of fact to support its judgment in a contempt proceeding and the superior court was sitting as an appellate court in this action and could not hear matters requiring factual findings. North Carolina Dept of Transp. v Davenport, 108 NC App 178, 423 SE2d 327, motion to dismiss app den 333 NC 463, 430 SE2d 676 and mod on other grounds, affd 334 NC 428, 432 SE2d 303. Footnote 57. Ex parte State ex rel. Carmichael, 251 Ala 57, 36 So 2d 457; State ex rel. Walker v Harrington (Sup) 42 Del 14, 27 A2d 67; State ex rel. Gannon v Lake Circuit Court, 223 Ind 375, 61 NE2d 168. The juvenile court is an inferior court within the meaning of the state constitution. Shelby County Election Com. v Turner (Tenn) 755 SW2d 774. Footnote 58. Walkinshaw v OBrien, 130 Conn 122, 32 A2d 547; Salitan v Dashney, 219 Or 553, 347 P2d 974, 81 ALR2d 532. As to the classification of courts as being of general or limited jurisdiction, generally, see § 68. Footnote 59. In re Jason D., 13 Conn App 626, 538 A2d 1073; Bruce E.M. v Dorothea A.M. (Del Sup) 455 A2d 866; State ex rel. Johnson v County Court of Perry County, 25 Ohio St 3d 53, 25 Ohio BR 77, 495 NE2d 16. A trial court of limited jurisdiction may not entertain an action for an injunction where the value of rights asserted by the plaintiff exceeds the courts jurisdictional limits. Parish of Jefferson v Paciera (La) 496 So 2d 266. The jurisdiction of a court of limited jurisdiction must clearly appear in the statute. State v Uhthoff, 45 Wash App 261, 724 P2d 1103, review den 107 Wash 2d 1017. Footnote 60. State ex rel. Parsons v Bushong (Allen Co) 92 Ohio App 101, 49 Ohio Ops 245, 109 NE2d 692; Salitan v Dashney, 219 Or 553, 347 P2d 974, 81 ALR2d 532; Fentress v Pruden, 185 Va 461, 39 SE2d 240. § 11 Special courts The term special court generally designates a separate court with special jurisdiction, such as court having jurisdiction only in juvenile matters, 61 probate mattters, 62 traffic offenses, 63 tax matters, 64 housing, 65 or family and domestic cases. 66 The term also refers to a court that is exercising a special jurisdiction with which it is endowed in addition to its general jurisdiction, such as the admiralty division of a Federal District Court, 67 the juvenile division 68 or probate division 69 of a court having other jurisdiction, and small claims courts. 70 Footnotes Footnote 61. 47 Am Jur 2d, Juvenile Courts and Delinquent and Dependent Children. Footnote 62. § 14. Footnote 63. Johnson v Virginia, 373 US 61, 10 L Ed 2d 195, 83 S Ct 1053. Footnote 64. Jefferson County ex rel. Grauman v Jefferson County Fiscal Court, 301 Ky 405, 192 SW2d 185. Footnote 65. Worcester Heritage Soc., Inc. v Trussell, 31 Mass App 343, 577 NE2d 1009. Footnote 66. In re Petition of B & F Towing & Salvage Co. (Del Sup) 551 A2d 45; Bruhn v McCready (2d Dept) 138 App Div 2d 374, 525 NYS2d 659; Scheuerman v Woronoff (RI) 459 A2d 957. Footnote 67. 2 Am Jur 2d, Admiralty § 10. Footnote 68. 47 Am Jur 2d, Juvenile Courts and Delinquent and Dependent Children. Footnote 69. § 14. Footnote 70. § 13
Posted on: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 07:06:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015