The Judicial System
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Course Name and Code
Professor’s Name
Date
The Judicial System
Question 1
Personal jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear a case and apply its decision to the party being sued (Jennings, 1). The U.S. Constitution stipulates that a party must have at least minimal contact with the forum where the court is situated before the court may exercise its power over that individual. On the other hand, subject matter jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear and decide over a certain type of case and a restriction to exercise authority on only that specific subject matter.
Both personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction are relevant to someone who does business in different states. Firstly, personal jurisdiction protects someone who does business in different states from being sued in more than one state. Usually, personal jurisdiction limits the court’s authority to adjudicate based on locality (Peterson, 2). Since a corporation is established solely through the laws of the state where it is registered, it cannot be sued for failing to comply with the laws of another state. Thus, the business entity of a person who does business in different states can only be sued in the state where the business entity is registered. On the other hand, the subject matter jurisdiction is important to someone who does business in different states since this type of jurisdiction cannot be waived (Berch, 3). Therefore, even if the plaintiff is from the state where the court is situated, he or she cannot accord the court the authority to decide over the presented case if the court does not have the authority in the first place.
Question 2
Stare decisis is a legal policy or doctrine that requires courts to follow principles or rules established in previous judicial decisions when ruling on the same or a similar legal case (Jennings, 1).
The selected U.S. Supreme Court decision relating to the regulation of business that is likely to impact business today is the Supreme Court decision on the Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid case. This case involved a California regulation that permitted labor organizers to enter agricultural workplaces and talk to farmworkers during non-working hours on a limited number of days. The regulation specified when, where, and how long the labor organizers could access the property to converse with the agricultural workers and prohibited disrupting agricultural operations or employer’s property. However, the private agricultural properties’ owners challenged the regulation claiming that it violated provisions of the Takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, which stipulates that private property should not be engaged in public use without fair compensation. The Supreme court ruled that the California regulation that permitted labor organizers to visit private farmland violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment (Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 5). This decision is likely to influence business today since it allows businesses to challenge regulations set earlier. I disagree with the Supreme Court decision since the regulation only required the union organizers to talk to agricultural workers during non-working hours, and access to the property was strictly limited to avoid disruptions.
Sources
Jennings, Marianne. (2022) Business: Its legal, ethical, and global environment (12th edition) Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
Peterson, David. (2019). Categorical Confusion in Personal Jurisdiction Law.Wash. & Lee L. Rev, 76,655.
Berch, Jessica. (2015). Waiving Jurisdiction. Pace L. Rev, 36,853.
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid. https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/cedar-point-nursery-v-hassid/#:~:text=Point%20Nursery%20v.-,Hassid,Clause%20of%20the%20Fifth%20Amendment.
