Preview

Court Case Summary Jurisdiction: Adam Vs. Federal Court In California

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
478 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Court Case Summary Jurisdiction: Adam Vs. Federal Court In California
Federal Jurisdiction
Henry, a resident of Nevada, sued Adam, a resident of Utah in the Federal Court in California. He sought $60,000 damages for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident that occurred in Los Angeles, California. Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction? No the federal court does not have jurisdiction over this case. In order for this case to fall within the guidelines of a federal suit it would have to qualify for diversity of citizenship. Diversity of citizenship exists in suits between (1) citizens of different states, (2) a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country, and (3) a state and citizens of another state. In this case since Henry is a resident of Nevada and Adam is a resident of Utah he can file the suit in California where the accident occurred but it
…show more content…
Diversity of Citizenship has a minimal jurisdictional amount of $75,000. Henry is only asking for $60,000 in damages. The only other way for this case to be tried in federal court would be if Henry could prove that the lawsuit contains a federal question. For this there is no jurisdictional amount. Civil actions that would fall under this may involve matters such as bankruptcy, anti-trust, securities regulations, patents, copyrights, trademarks, taxes, elections, the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and those rights secured to individual citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment (Morgan, Shedd & Corley, 2010). The information given does not show where any of the federal questions come into play. However if this case could be tried in federal court it would actually benefit the defendant as it has the advantage of allowing for the jury to be selected from an area larger than the county where the case arose. This hopefully will reduce the possibility of jurors tending to favor the plaintiff. Henry would be better of hiring a

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    In this case “Anthony Walden vs. Gina Fiore” they are trying to figure out if the state of Nevada has the right to exercise personal jurisdiction over the case. On August 8, 2006 TSA at San Juan airport searched Gina Fiore and Keith Gipson and their bags where they found about 97,000 dollars cash, Fiore told them that they were just extreme gamblers that had just finished gambling at a local spot El San Juan. Also, she stated that she was a resident of California and Nevada and she planned to catch the flight to Atlanta then take a connected flight to Nevada. Even with that large sum of money they were cleaned and boarded the flight and departed to Atlanta. A law enforcement officer from the San Juan airport contacted the petitioner task force…

    • 546 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Issue: Is it ethical for the plaintiff to overstate the amount of damage in order to obtain federal diversity jurisdiction?…

    • 4376 Words
    • 17 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    One trucking company owner, Tanya Trucker owns a company that is located in the state of Denial. Ms. Trucker is not happy with the additional expenses that this statute will cost her business. Her intentions are to file suit against the state of Confusion to have this statute overturned. However, before this can happens Ms. Trucker must establish which state would have jurisdiction to rule on the case. In this case both parties reside in different states. Diversity of citizenship occurs if a case between (1) citizens of different states, (2) a citizen of a state and a citizen or subject of a foreign country, or (3) a citizen of a state and a foreign country, where the foreign country is the plaintiff. (Cheeseman 2010)…

    • 896 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Katz (the appellant) was convicted under an eight-count indictment, charged with transmitting wagering information by telephone from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston. The evidence, telephone conversations overheard by the FBI agents with an attached electronic listening and recording device, to the phone booth Katz used. The Court of Appeals rejected the contention that the recordings had been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.…

    • 195 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The facts of the case stated that on August 2, 2009, Riley, who belonged to the one of the gangs of San Diego, California, and others shot at a rival gang member while driving past them. The shooters got into Riley’s car and drove away. Then, twenty days later on August 22, 2009, the police pulled Riley over driving a different car because of his expired license registration tags. They found that his driver’s license had been suspended. Police searched his car before impounding it. During the search, the police located two guns in the car and then arrested Riley for possession of said guns. Riley had his cell phone in his pocket at…

    • 527 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the case of Smith v. United States, the plaintiff, John Angus Smith, was convicted of engaging in drug-trafficking, which would have granted him a five year sentence had he not “used” a firearm in regards to the incident. As stated in statute 924(c)(1), the use of firearm in relations to a drug-trafficking crime enhanced the sentence, and turned it into a 30-year sentence. The argument at hand is whether the term “use” was to be taken from a broad dictionary definition or in the ordinary meaning. The majority of the court argued that the term “use” should not be limited to the intended use of the firearm (as a weapon) as they exemplified cases of which the firearm was used as a bludgeon even though that was not it’s intended purpose, yet…

    • 409 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In 2002, Lemon Montrea Johnson was the passenger in the backseat of a car stopped for a traffic violation. Johnson was charged with; inter alia, possession of drugs and possession of a weapon by a felon. These items were discovered during a protective pat-down search of Johnson. Johnson was convicted by the trial court. Johnson argued that his conviction should be overturned because the trial court was in error by denying his motion to suppress the evidence. He argued that he had been unlawfully “seized” because being a passenger in a vehicle does not automatically constitute “seizure.” He furthered argued that even if he had been “seized,” that by the time Officer Trevizo searched him he was no longer “seized” as their conversation had become consensual. Furthermore, the evidence should not be considered because the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights and because the…

    • 4995 Words
    • 20 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the case US v. Calandra (1974), Calandra was being questioned by the federal grand jury about loan sharking business. The reason the jury was asking these question were based on the evidence obtained at his company. Calandra didn’t want to answer any questions because he felt that the search of the company was an unlawful search and that it violated his fourth amendment exclusionary rule. The refusal to answer the grand jury, was what was being question about this case. Calandra felt like because of the exclusionary rule unde0r the fourth amendment he didn’t have to answer but he was wrong. The supreme court held that the exclusionary rule was only applicable in criminal courts and was not meant to be seen as a right but as a way to reduce unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by police ("Oyez: US v. Calandra," n.d.).…

    • 1275 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Respondent Jones was a subject of a Government investigation in part of a much larger drug trafficking conspiracy. As part of the investigation, FBI agents had obtained a court order to place a GPS tracking device on a vehicle driven by Jones – a Jeep registered to Jone's wife. The court order was issued in the District of Columbia and was set to expire 10 days after it was signed by the judge. On Day 11, the Government attached the GPS device underneath the carriage of the Jeep on a public roadway in Maryland. Effectively, the government was acting outside of its authorization. The device reported GPS tracker data for 28 days after the installation to a Government computer, providing location information for several weeks. This evidence was used against Jones resulting in a hung trial. Jone's was retried and later convicted. Jone appealed, and the D.C. Circuit Court reversed the lower court's finding, citing the evidence was obtained in violation…

    • 870 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The question here is whether or not the petitioner, Jose Padilla, will be deported on account that he had plead guilty to a crime but allegedly had his sixth amendment right violated. There are multiply issues here. The first issue here is Padilla plead guilty to a drug offense that took place in the United States. The second issue is he claims his counsel did not inform him about the consequences of his plea bargain and he was misinformed about the possibility of deportation. The third is he states his decision would have been different if his counsel would have been verbally clear about the risk of his plea bargain. The short answer to the question is yes. Yes, Padilla will be deported back to his home country of Honduras.…

    • 541 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    a member of a different gang driving by. They used Riley's car to get away and then left the car somewheres else. On August 22, 2009 they pulled Riley over while he was driving another car on an expired license registration tag. After Riley was stopped for this violation the officer seized and searched his phone without a warrant, he was arrested on weapon charges. The Riley v. California case was argued April 29, 2014 and decided on June 25, 2014.The main issue in this case was how the police officer searched his phone without a warrant then arrested him and if this action violated the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment clearly states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…”.…

    • 529 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In 1976, the California Supreme Court ruled that psychotherapists have a duty to warn and protect potential victims if their patients made threats or otherwise behaved as if they presented a serious danger of violence to another. This ruling happened because of the Tarasoff Case of 1969, in which the court determined the need for therapists to protect the public was more important than protecting patient-therapist confidentiality. (Vitelli 1)…

    • 615 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The court case, United States v. Lopez, was the first Unites States Supreme Court case in a long time, since the early 1930’s, that confines the power of congress. Which functions the importance of the relationship between the federal government and the states. The National and State government both share similarities in which they create and enforce laws. The United States has been dependent on sharing powers with the Federal government and individual State government. However, many cases have been able to represent the arbitrary to the allocation of powers. This case in particular showed that Congress was way over their power for controlling a public school district.…

    • 494 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Jewell v state case brief

    • 427 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Facts: Bridget Fisher bought a house in 1989 by herself. She married Barry Jewell, and he helped her fix the house. They lived together on and off and then married in 1990. Later, they got divorced and Jewell moved into his friend's apartment. When Jewell found out that Fisher was seeing another man, he told his friend that he wanted to beat her boyfriends head with a 2 by 4 and cut his dick off.…

    • 427 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Facts: Kyle John Kelbel was convicted of first-degree murder, past pattern of child abuse, in violation of Minnesota state statute section 609.185(5) and second-degree murder, in violation of Minnesota statute 609.19, subdivision 2(1). He was sentenced to life in prison for the death of Kailyn Marie Montgomery. Kelbel appealed, and argued that the district court failed to instruct the jury that it must find that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the acts that constituted the past pattern of child abuse and he also argued that the evidence against him was insufficient to prove past pattern of child abuse against Kailyn. Kelbel testified that the head injury of Kailyn was inflicted by a cup thrown at her head by step brother Evan. Kelbel also testified that other injuries found on Kailyn were caused by Evan and that he is "rough" with her. Medical examiners ran an autopsy on Kailyn's body and determined that the injuries had been caused by blunt trauma and force caused by a knee or fist. Medical examiners testified that the injuries caused could not have been caused by a cup thrown at her head or by an accidental fall down the stairs. Kailyn's mother, Lindsey, also testified that Kailyn had previous injuries that she became concerned with. Upon retrieving a search warrant, police entered Lindsey's home to find further evidence. Police found a dent in the wall near Kailyn's bed. After Kelbel was eventually found guilty of the charges brought, Kelbel filed a motion for a judgement of aquittal and for a new trial on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The district court denied the motion.…

    • 603 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays