1. What are trial Courts of Limited Jurisdiction?

Courts of limited jurisdiction are courts that handle lesser crimes like misdemeanors and are
narrow in their scope. They can be thought of as specialty courts; they deal with cases specific to
their jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is the legal authority granted to a certain entity, which can include a court. If a court
has jurisdiction, it can evaluate cases within that jurisdiction and make judgments. For example, the
federal government cannot take jurisdiction in investigations or court trials if federal law has not
been broken.

A. What types of cases are heard in a limited jurisdiction?

Specialized cases like marriage, traffic violations, probate, and juvenile cases are heard in a
limited jurisdiction court. Limited jurisdiction is more likely to see misdemeanors and other
small claims cases.

B. What is a limited jurisdiction example?

An example of limited jurisdiction is a small claims court. These courts tend to deal in
misdemeanors rather than felonies. They are funded by the state and help the larger general
courts not be overwhelmed by small claims.

Courts of limited jurisdiction can include small claims courts, traffic courts, marriage courts, and
probate courts (dealing with a deceased person's debts and assets).

2. Trial Courts of General Jurisdiction?

General jurisdiction means that when a person is a resident of a state, that state has a say over a
person in any court in that state regarding the legal matter. For example, if someone commits a
crime in Texas, Louisiana does not have general jurisdiction over that person since they do not
reside in that state.

A. What are some examples of general and limited jurisdiction courts?

Examples of general jurisdiction courts are the New York Supreme Court, or any state or federal
court that takes on criminal and civil cases. Limited jurisdiction courts, however, are more specific.
An example can be a family law court that deals with matters directly related to the subject matter,
such as divorce, custody, etc.

B. What is general jurisdiction vs limited jurisdiction?

General means that when a person is a resident of a state, that state has a say over a person in any
court in that state regarding the legal matter. Limited jurisdiction means that the court can only
hear and pass judgment upon cases that are limited to specific types of issues . These courts deal
with minor disputes, such as traffic tickets, small claims, or family issues, such as divorce or child
custody.

C. What type of cases do courts of general jurisdiction handle?

Courts of general jurisdiction handle larger cases over minor disputes. These cases can range from
drug offenses to murder, assault, and breaking and entering among other serious offenses.
What is General Jurisdiction?

The definition of courts of general jurisdiction are courts that have the authority to hear and
pass judgment upon all types of cases and are not limited to a specific type of case introduced and
heard legally in the American justice system. General jurisdiction means that when a person is a
resident of a state, that state has general jurisdiction over said person in any court in that state
regarding the legal matter. Cases will typically reside in courts of general jurisdiction, but there is a
hierarchy to where a case might ultimately land in terms of specificity regarding the subject matter.

3. What is Intermediate Appellate Court?

Intermediate appellate courts, referred to as the court of appeals in most states, often have
mandatory jurisdiction over original appeals from the trial courts.

The Intermediate Appellate Court shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings,
receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in
cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and
conduct new trials or further proceedings.

4. What is the Court of Last Resort? (Supreme Court)

A court of last resort is the highest court in a judicial system. It is called a court of last resort
because there can be no appeal from its decision. As the highest court, it serves a special role in the
legal system by issuing a final decision in a judicial case. In the United States judicial system, the
court of last resort is the United States Supreme Court.

A. What would be an example of a court of last resort?

An example of a court of last resort is the United States Supreme Court, which is the highest
judicial authority under the United States Constitution.

B. What is the purpose of the court of last resort?

The court of last resort is the highest court in the judicial system and can apply both to the
United States Supreme Court for matters of federal law as well as a state Supreme Court for
matters of state law. It makes a final decision on cases that have been appealed in previous
courts.

C. Why is it called the court of last resort?

A Supreme Court is known as the court of last resort because there can be no appeal from its
decision; it is the final legal authority to which a party can appeal to resolve a judicial dispute.

5. What does Doctrine of precedent mean?

The doctrine of precedent is the custom of the courts to stand by previous decisions, so that
once a point of law is decided upon by a court, then the same law must be applied to future
cases with materially similar facts.
 The doctrine of precedent is often referred to as 'stare decisis'. The lower courts will take
account of and follow the decisions made by the higher courts.

6. Res Judicata
1. Res judicata or bar by prior judgment is a doctrine which holds that a matter that has been
adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction must be deemed to have been finally and
conclusively settled if it arises in any subsequent litigation between the same parties and for
the same cause.
2. a thing adjudged

res judicata, (Latin: “a thing adjudged”), a thing or matter that has been finally juridically
decided on its merits and cannot be litigated again between the same parties. The term is often
used in reference to the maxim that repeated reexamination of adjudicated disputes is not in
any society's interest.

3. res judicata is the principle that a cause of action may not be relitigated once it has been
judged on the merits. "Finality" is the term which refers to when a court renders a final
judgment on the merits.
4. Res judicata is also frequently referred to as "claim preclusion," and the two are used
interchangeably throughout this article.

It has long been held that one judicial contest is enough for the litigants on a particular claim or
defense. As the volume of judicial work has risen, the need to limit litigants to a single contest about
a single controversy has become more urgent. The concept of res judicata has expanded in scope
and power as the courts have refined its operation.

7. Reversal and Overruling

Overruling a decision and reversing a decision are both legal concepts, but they have different
meanings.

Overruling a decision typically refers to a higher court's decision to invalidate a previous

decision made by a lower court. This means that the higher court disagrees with the legal
reasoning or interpretation of the lower court and renders the previous decision void.

Reversing a decision, on the other hand, can refer to the act of changing a decision that was
previously made. This can happen within the same court or by the same authority that made
the original decision. It can also happen as a result of new evidence, a change in
circumstances, or a reevaluation of the facts.

In summary, overruling a decision involves a higher authority invalidating a decision made by a

lower authority, while reversing a decision involves changing a decision for various reasons,
regardless of the authority level.
Here's an example of overruling a decision:

Let's say there is a case where a lower court, such as a district court, rules that a particular law is
unconstitutional and strikes it down. The government, dissatisfied with that decision, decides to
appeal the case to a higher court, such as an appellate court or a supreme court.

If the higher court reviews the case and disagrees with the lower court's decision, they may
overrule it. This means that the higher court declares that the lower court's decision was
incorrect or legally flawed. As a result, the higher court's decision supersedes the decision of the
lower court, and the law in question is deemed constitutional and remains in effect.

In this scenario, the higher court is overruling the decision of the lower court by invalidating its
ruling and providing a different legal interpretation or outcome.

When a decision is reversed, it can have various effects on the parties involved depending on
the specific circumstances and the nature of the decision being reversed. Here are a few
possible scenarios:

Legal implications: Reversing a legal decision can have significant legal implications for the
parties involved. It may alter their rights, obligations, or legal standing. For example, if a court
reverses a criminal conviction, the individual may be released from prison or have their
sentence reduced. In a civil case, a reversed decision could impact issues such as liability,
damages, or contractual obligations.

Financial consequences: Reversing a decision can have financial ramifications. For instance, if a
business transaction is reversed, parties may need to unwind the transaction and potentially
face financial losses. In some cases, a reversed decision may require the return of funds or
assets obtained as a result of the original decision.

Stability and predictability: Reversals can undermine stability and predictability. Parties may
have relied on the original decision to plan their actions or investments. Reversing the decision
may disrupt those plans and introduce uncertainty, potentially causing inconvenience or
hardship.

Reputation and public perception: Reversing a decision can impact the reputation and public
perception of the parties involved. It may suggest that the original decision was flawed or based
on incorrect information. This can affect public trust, credibility, and the perception of the
party's professionalism or competence.

Emotional and psychological impact: Reversing a decision can have emotional and psychological
consequences. Parties may experience frustration, disappointment, or a sense of injustice if they
were initially pleased with the decision that was later reversed. It can also lead to stress, anxiety,
or uncertainty about the future.
 It's important to note that the specific effects of a decision reversal will depend on the context,
the individuals involved, and the nature of the decision itself.

TWO TYPES OF RULES:

8. What does Ratio decidendi mean?

'The reason for deciding'

The ratio decidendi is the reason for a court's decision and is part of the judgement delivered
at the end of a case. Through analysis of the facts, the judge applies the appropriate rule or
principle of law and makes ruling on the verdict of a case. Ratio decidendi is generally binding on
lower courts and later judgments, unlike obiter dictum.
The binding type of rule is one that actually decides the case. This is known in Latin as the ‘ratio
decidendi’, or reason for the decision. Sometimes it is shortened just to ‘ratio’. All cases must
have a ratio because it is the rule that the judge applies to decide the case and also the judge
must explain this in their reasons.

1. For example, in the circumstances of the case of MacLennan v MacLennan, Footnote if the
judge had decided that the partner who became pregnant by artificial insemination had not
committed adultery, then the ratio might be something like: ‘a married woman who
becomes pregnant through self-impregnation does not commit adultery’. The ratio is
obviously the most important part of a case.

9. What does Obiter dictum mean?

The second type of rule is the one that is not binding. Judges sometimes like to offer comments
about hypothetical and related circumstances that they do not have to decide. They do this to
explain their thinking and check that the rules that they are applying make sense. This is also
known by its Latin name of ‘obiter dictum’ meaning an incidental comment. Sometimes this is also
shortened to just ‘obiter’. Rules that are obiter are not binding on later judges, but they may be
persuasive.

For example, in the case of MacLennan v MacLennan, when giving reasons, the judge might
have said something like: ‘Of course, and hypothetically speaking, it might be the case that a
married man might offer his sperm to somebody other than his wife for reproductive purposes
and without having intercourse. While these are not the facts before the court today, my view is
that those circumstances would not amount to adultery either’. If there was a later case that
happened to fit those facts, then the earlier judge’s comments would not be binding, but they
would be influential. Exactly how influential depends on how senior the court is.