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 Jurisdiction
State 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 Jurisdiction
Federal 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,
• Out of state defendants
usually through
– Jurisdiction is more
– Summons through
difficult
service of process or – Serve them while in
substituted service
the state
– Residency
– May not “trick” them
– Doing business in
to get into the state
the state
for service of
process
– Submission to the
jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State
Business Defendants
• Long-arm Statutes
– Aimed at nonresident 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