in a conflict of laws situation, when can the American courts assume jurisdiction over the dispute?
820823
In order for it to be considered Forum Non Conveniens (latin for "unconvenient forum" ) there have to be certain requirements:\n1. there has to be a more adequate forum\n2. the other forum must be of better service to the parties\n3. neither the plaintiff nor the defendant can be harmed by such a procedure\n\nIf, for example, the witnesses are located in the US, then it would be "of better service" to the parties to have the dispute resolved in the US.. if elsewhere then this somewhere else would be "more adeqaute" and so on\n\nYou can check the Spiliada Case. It's considered a landmark case regarding Forum Non Conveniens (In UK though)\n\nYou can also check the Laker Airways Case, where the UK and US were fighting over jurisdiction, and it was later held that both were free to proceed the trial. US due to territorial reasons and the UK due to the nationality of several parties. This case has to do more with Anti Suit Injunctions, though.
689484
if a contract is valid in one country the courts should inforce the contract in another country ask the legal attache at the embassy or counselet in washington
111050
Whatever court of law has jurisdiction where the offense took place!
47375
Cases have to first be filed at a court of first impression. If the case has federal jurisdiction, this would be the Federal Circuit Court, or if it has state jurisdiction, a lower state court. Once it is heard here, the lawyer on the losing side can file an appeal with the Appeals Court, and the losing party there can then file an appeal with the Supreme Court, which decides whether or not to hear the case.
693206
The court refused to issue the injunction requested because the court does not have discretionary review of Executive authority.\n\n"The president is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. ... And whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The acts of such an officer, as an officer, can never be examinable by the courts." 5 US 137 @ 166\n\nIn other words, as long as the Executive is acting WITHIN the bounds established by law, the Executive has with the sole authority to determine how laws are to be enforced. And as long as the officer does not violate the law, the only remedy available is impeachment\n\n"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. ... But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy." 5 US 137 @ 163-166
677007
I am a 3rd year law student and the answer is pretty much "yes". After a long line of cases after the Burger Court, the Court has been very deferential to allowing Congress to regulate activities "affecting, involved in or substantially affecting" interstate commerce. There are certain situations where it would be blantatly out of Congress's power to regulate (like something purely intrastate) but for the most part, Congress can regulate about any activity that has a substantial affect on interstate commerce.
390231
Depends on when the judge makes the decision.Followup with your lawyer.
25724
I think it's better for you to stick with the original question.  Many people in many countries, like China or Sudan, suffer real religious persecution, for instance, and do not have access to our legal system.  The United States simply protected individual liberties better than any country in the world.\n\nThat said, Michael Newdow's rights have not been violated.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly articulated "standing" requirements for plaintiffs, which means that the plaintiff has a "case or controversy" under Article III of the Constitution, and the federal court system is authorized to hear that "case or controversy."\n\nSix principles have been repeatedly articulated by the Court in cases like Valley Forge. Three are constitutional: the plaintiff must have and injury in fact (actual or threatened, and imminent); the harm caused must be fairly traceable to the conduct; and a favorable court decision will lead to redress.  Three are prudential: no third-party standing is permitted on concern of the vigor of the litigations; no generalized grievances will be heard, since equal harm is dispersed among population; and the harm must occur within the "zone of interests" of the plaintiff.\n\nThe Lujan case suggested that the "generalized grievances" standard is more of a constitutional than prudential claim, and it appears that Newdow's claim falls under that prong of the test.  Nevertheless, under contemporary standing doctrine, Newdow's does not have a "concrete and particularized injury," but only a "general grievance" as an offended bystander.
1010175
probably depends on the jurisdiction.
305215
You would probably need to talk to a lawyer that is certified or has experience with international law/cases. International cases are kind of complicated.
698308
America should acknowledge international law, which says these waters are Canadian. Hopefully it will be resolved amicably, but beware - America was sent packing when it attacked British North America (as it then was) in 1812 and 1819.
128635
A "long arm" statute is law passed by a state government giving courts in that state jurisdiction over defendants who do not necessarily live in that state or do business there regularlly. \n\nJurisdiction refers to the power of the court to decide a case.  Jurisdiction is of two types:  subject matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the parties (personal jurisdiction.  A court must have both types of jurisdiction before it has jurisdiction to decide the case.  Personal jurisdiction relates to the question of whether someone from another state, Alaska, New York, or Nevada can be forced to come to the state where the lawsuit was filed (the "forum state") e.g. California, to defend against the lawsuit.  The existence of personal jurisdiction depends upon a sufficient connection between the defendant and the forum state to make it fair to require defense of the action in the forum.  The long arm statute sets for the conditions under which the trial court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.
1061557
The US did in 1803 when we fought our first over seas war in Monazuma. We were trading with other countries in the Med. sea and we did not pay the "priates" monet to not attack our trade ships. They were called terrorist then. The US went to a short war with the terrorist and won. The Congress adopted a "no negotiation" standard then.
667074
Article Three of the United States Constitution outlines the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the United States:\n\nThe judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.\n\nThe jurisdiction of the federal courts was further limited by the Eleventh Amendment, which forbade the federal courts from hearing cases "commenced or prosecuted against [a State] by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." However, the Eleventh Amendment is not deemed to apply if a state consents to be sued (see Sovereign immunity). Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may abrogate the states' immunity from lawsuits in certain circumstances. In addition to constitutional constraints, the jurisdiction of the federal courts is also limited by various federal laws. For example, the federal courts may consider "Controversies ... between Citizens of different States" only if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; otherwise, the case may only be brought in state courts.\n\nFurther information: diversity jurisdiction \nThe Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors and other diplomats, and in cases in which a state is a party. In all other cases, however, the Supreme Court has only appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court considers cases based on its original jurisdiction very rarely; almost all cases are brought to the Supreme Court on appeal. In practice, the only original jurisdiction cases heard by the Court are disputes between two or more states.\n\nThe power of the Supreme Court to consider appeals from state courts, rather than just federal courts, was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and upheld early in the Court's history, by its rulings in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) and Cohens v. Virginia (1821). The Supreme Court is the only federal court that has jurisdiction over direct appeals from state court decisions, although there are a variety of devices that permit so-called "collateral review" of state cases.\n\nThe Supreme Court may only hear actual cases and controversies. It does not hear moot cases or issue advisory opinions. However, the Court may consider some cases, such as Roe v. Wade, that become moot during the judicial process, if it appears that the legal issue involved is likely to arise again but would not be reviewable by the Court under a strict mootness analysis. "Roe" had already had her baby when the case came to the Supreme Court, because judicial activity (trials, appeals and so on) takes much longer than human gestation. Because future abortion cases would face the same time constraints, the Court decided the case in spite of its mootness.\n\nThe Supreme Court is not required to hear every case presented to it. In cases that are heard by a three-judge United States district court (a practice that formerly was somewhat common but has been limited to very few cases by legislation in recent years), there is a right of appeal directly to the Supreme Court, although the Court may dispose of these appeals by summary order if it does not believe they are important enough for full briefing and argument. In most instances, however, the party must petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. By custom, certiorari is granted on the
1022379
Military law.\n\nMaritime is shared between countries.\nAll government levels have criminal and civil laws.\n\nIf a state law and federal law conflict, the one with the most stringent law wins.
299803
Jurisdiction is the right of a court to hear a case.\n\nVenue is the physical location of the court where the trial is heard.
615639
The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, as opposed to state courts, which are courts of general jurisdiction.  In order for a federal court to have jurisdiction over a lawsuit the controversy must involve a federal statute or be between parties of diverse residence, i.e. different states.  A colorable federal question means that a lawsuit qualifies to be heard by a federal court because it involves an alleged violation of a federal statute.