Jurisdiction Legal Definition Of Jurisdiction

In most jurisdictions, other trial courts of special jurisdiction exist apart from the courts of general jurisdiction; some examples are probate, tax, traffic Finally, jurisdiction refers to the inherent authority of a court to hear a case and to declare a judgment. When a plaintiff seeks to initiate a suit..."Jurisdiction" generally refers to the legal authority or power of the court to decide an issue. It has been observed that criminal law, in contrast with civil law, is "highly territorial" and that countries should not "enforce the criminal law of other countries". Types of Jurisdiction.Original jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to hear disputes as a trial court; these courts determine the facts of a case. Whereas an appellate jurisdiction refers to a court's ability to review and/or revise cases already decided by a trial court.Territorial Jurisdiction refers to the authority a court has over cases within its specific geographical territory. Police jurisdiction refers primarily to the agency's assigned geographic region. Within a single state, there may be several law enforcement agencies, which work together in a sort of...Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear a certain type of case, while personal jurisdiction refers to the power with which a court may bind an individual party. Most cases and controversies that can be heard by the federal judiciary consist of the following

Jurisdiction of the Courts - Criminal Law Notebook

суд первой инстанции (The Supreme Court acts as a court of original jurisdiction in very rare cases only. законодательная компетенция федерации (Federal legislative jurisdiction refers to the federal authority to legislate and to exercise executive and judicial powers within a specified area.In law, jurisdiction usually refers to a certain geographic area with a defined legal authority. For instance, the federal government can be said to Federal Courts vs. State Courts As indicated above, personal jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court over the parties involved in the case while...Jurisdiction (from Latin juris 'law' + dictio 'declaration') is the practical authority granted to a legal body to administer justice, as defined by the kind of case, and the location of the issue (its situs). In federations like the United States, areas of jurisdiction apply to local, state, and federal levels.What does jurisdiction mean? Jurisdiction is defined as the power or authority to decide legal cases. (noun) An example of jurisdiction is a court ha... The right of a court to hear a particular case, based on the scope of its authority over the type of case and the parties to the case.

How does Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to .?

JURISDICTION — Authority of a court to hear and determine cases. This authority is constitutionally based. Examples of judicial jurisdiction are Oxford Thesaurus English vocab. JURISDICTION — Refers to a court's authority to judge over a situation usually acquired in one of three ways: over...…made in a lower court; concurrent jurisdiction, in which a suit might be brought to any of two or more courts; and federal jurisdiction (as opposed, for While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other...Jurisdiction. The geographic area over which authority extends; legal authority; the authority to hear and determine causes of action. Defendants in a civil lawsuit filed in state court may ask a federal district court to remove the matter to federal court in that state if the defendants are not citizens of...The jurisdiction of the Court in contentious proceedings is based on the consent of the States to which it is open1. Such cases normally come before the Court by notification to the Registry of an agreement known as a special agreement, concluded by the parties specially for this purpose2."Jurisdiction" refers to the legal authority or power of the court over the subject matter, time and location, the persons connected to the proceeding. Jurisdiction is intimately tied with the state based on a geographic region or territory. This is known as the "principle of territoriality".

Jump to navigation Jump to search For an article on the use of jurisdiction to imply a state or country, see Jurisdiction (house).

Jurisdiction (from Latin juris 'law' + dictio 'declaration') is the practical authority granted to a prison frame to administer justice, as outlined by way of the sort of case, and the location of the issue (its situs). In federations like the United States, spaces of jurisdiction follow to native, state, and federal ranges.

Colloquially it's used to refer to the geographical house to which such authority applies, e.g., the court has jurisdiction over all of Colorado. The legal time period refers only to the granted authority, now not to a geographical area.

Jurisdiction attracts its substance from international law, battle of laws, constitutional law, and the powers of the government and legislative branches of govt to allocate sources to best possible serve the wishes of society.

International size

Generally, world regulations and treaties supply agreements which countries agree to be sure to. Such agreements are not at all times established or maintained. The exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction through 3 ideas outlined in the UN constitution. These are equality of states, territorial sovereignty and non-intervention.[1] This raises the query of when can many states prescribe or enforce jurisdiction. The Lotus case establishes two key regulations to the prescription and enforcement of jurisdiction. The case outlines that jurisdiction is territorial and that a state may not workout its jurisdiction in the territory of another state except there is a rule that allows this.[2] On that very same observe, states experience a large measure of discretion to prescribe jurisdiction over persons, belongings and acts within their own territory except there was a rule that prohibits this.[3]

Political factor

Supranational organizations supply mechanisms wherein disputes between countries could also be resolved through arbitration or mediation. When a nation is known as de jure, it is an acknowledgment through the different de jure international locations that the country has sovereignty and the correct to exist.

However, it's frequently at the discretion of each country whether or not to co-operate or take part. If a country does agree to participate in actions of the supranational bodies and settle for decisions, the country is giving up its sovereign authority and thereby allocating power to those our bodies..

Insofar as these our bodies or nominated people might resolve disputes via judicial or quasi-judicial approach, or promote treaty responsibilities in the nature of laws, the energy ceded to these bodies cumulatively represents its own jurisdiction. But no matter how tough each and every body might appear to be, the extent to which any of their judgments could also be enforced, or proposed treaties and conventions might develop into, or stay, effective inside of the territorial boundaries of each and every nation is a political matter beneath the sovereign control each country.

International and municipal

The undeniable fact that global organizations, courts and tribunals were created raises the tough question of how to co-ordinate their activities with those of national courts. If the two sets of bodies don't have concurrent jurisdiction however, as in the case of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the relationship is expressly in line with the principle of complementarity, i.e., the world court is subsidiary or complementary to nationwide courts, the problem is have shyed away from. But if the jurisdiction claimed is concurrent or, as in the case of International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the world tribunal is to prevail over national courts, the problems are more difficult to unravel politically.

The idea of common jurisdiction is key to the operation of global organizations comparable to the United Nations and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which jointly assert the receive advantages of maintaining prison entities with jurisdiction over a wide selection of issues of importance to countries (the ICJ must not be confused with the ICC and this version of "universal jurisdiction" isn't the similar as that enacted in the War Crimes Law (Belgium), which is an assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction that may fail to acquire implementation in every other state beneath the usual provisions of public policy). Under Article 34 Statute of the ICJ[4] only countries is also parties in cases ahead of the Court and, under Article 36, the jurisdiction incorporates all circumstances which the events refer to it and all issues specifically supplied for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in power. But, to invoke the jurisdiction in any given case, all the events have to accept the potential judgment as binding. This reduces the risk of wasting the Court's time.

Despite the safeguards built into the constitutions of maximum of those organizations, courts and tribunals, the idea of common jurisdiction is debatable amongst those nations which want unilateral to multilateral solutions via the use of government or military authority, once in a while described as realpolitik-based diplomacy.

Within different world contexts, there are intergovernmental organizations corresponding to the World Trade Organization (WTO) that experience socially and economically vital dispute resolution functions but, once more, even supposing their jurisdiction could also be invoked to hear the circumstances, the power to implement their selections is at the will of the international locations affected, save that the WTO is authorized to allow retaliatory motion via a hit countries in opposition to the ones countries found to be in breach of global industry law. At a regional level, groups of international locations can create political and criminal our bodies with on occasion difficult patchworks of overlapping provisions detailing the jurisdictional relationships between the member states and offering for a point of harmonization between their national legislative and judicial functions, for example, the European Union and African Union both have the possible to grow to be federated nations although the political obstacles to such unification in the face of entrenched nationalism will likely be very difficult to triumph over. Each such workforce might form transnational establishments with declared legislative or judicial powers. For example, in Europe, the European Court of Justice has been given jurisdiction as the final appellate court to the member states on issues of European regulation. This jurisdiction is entrenched and its authority may only be denied through a member country if that member nation asserts its sovereignty and withdraws from the union.

Law

The same old treaties and conventions leave the issue of implementation to each nation, i.e. there is no basic rule in world legislation that treaties have direct effect in municipal regulation, but some countries, by way of virtue of their membership of supranational bodies, permit the direct incorporation of rights or enact regulation to honor their global commitments. Hence, citizens in those countries can invoke the jurisdiction of local courts to put in force rights granted underneath global legislation anyplace there may be incorporation. If there is no direct effect or legislation, there are two theories to justify the courts incorporating world into municipal legislation:

MonismThis concept characterizes world and municipal regulation as a single legal gadget with municipal legislation subordinate to international regulation. Hence, in the Netherlands, all treaties and the orders of global organizations are efficient with none motion being required to convert international into municipal law. This has a captivating outcome because treaties that limit or lengthen the powers of the Dutch govt are robotically thought to be a part of their constitutional law, as an example, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In international locations adopting this idea, the native courts routinely accept jurisdiction to adjudicate on lawsuits relying on international law ideas.DualismThis theory regards world and municipal law as separate techniques so that the municipal courts can simplest follow world law both when it has been integrated into municipal regulation or when the courts incorporate world regulation on their very own motion. In the United Kingdom, for instance, a treaty is not effective until it's been included at which era it becomes enforceable in the courts via any private citizen, where appropriate, even against the UK Government. Otherwise the courts have a discretion to practice world regulation where it does no longer struggle with statute or the common regulation. The constitutional principle of parliamentary supremacy lets in the legislature to enact any legislation inconsistent with any global treaty obligations despite the fact that the government is a signatory to those treaties.

In the United States, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution makes all treaties that have been ratified under the authority of the United States and common international law a part of the "Supreme Law of the Land" (together with the Constitution itself and acts of Congress handed pursuant to it) (U.S. Const.art. VI Cl. 2) and, as such, the law of the land is binding on the federal executive in addition to on state and native governments. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the treaty power authorizes Congress to legislate under the Necessary and Proper Clause in spaces past those particularly conferred on Congress (Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920)).

International

This concerns the relationships both between courts in different jurisdictions, and between courts inside the identical jurisdiction. The usual criminal doctrine beneath which questions of jurisdiction are decided is termed discussion board non conveniens.

To care for the issue of forum shopping, nations are advised to adopt more sure regulations on conflict of rules. The Hague Conference and other global our bodies have made tips on jurisdictional matters, but litigants with the encouragement of attorneys on a contingent rate proceed to store for boards.

Jurisdiction Principles

Under global law there are other rules which might be known to establish a State's talent to exercise prison jurisdiction when it comes to a person. There is not any hierarchy when it comes to any of the principles. States must subsequently work in combination to remedy issues of who would possibly workout their jurisdiction when it comes to problems of more than one principles being allowed. The principles are Territorial Principle, Nationality Principle, Passive Personality Principle, Protective Principle, Universality Principle

Territorial Principle: This theory states that the State the place the crime has been dedicated might workout jurisdiction. This is one of the most straightforward and least debatable of the ideas. This may be the simplest idea that is territorial in nature; all different kinds are extraterritorial.[5][6]

Nationality Principle (also known as the Active Personality Principle): This concept is founded round a individual's nationality and lets in States to workout jurisdiction when it comes to their nationality, each inside of and outside the State's territory. Seeing as the territoriality concept already offers the State the right to workout jurisdiction, this idea is basically used as a justification for prosecuting crimes dedicated in another country by way of a States nationals.[7][8] There is a growing pattern to allow States to additionally practice this theory to permanent citizens in a foreign country as smartly (as an example: Denmark Criminal Code (2005), sec 7; Finland Criminal Code (2015), sec 6; Iceland Criminal Code (2014), artwork 5; Latvia Criminal Code (2013), sec 4; Netherlands Criminal Code (2019), artwork 7; Norway Criminal Code (2005), sec 12; Swedish Criminal Code (1999), sec 2; Lithuania Criminal Code (2015), artwork 5).

Passive Personality Principle: This principle is identical to the Nationality Principle, apart from you're exercising jurisdiction towards a foreign nationals that has committed a prison act in opposition to its own national. The idea is that a State has a accountability to offer protection to its nationals and due to this fact if any individual harms their nationals that State has the right to prosecute the accused.[9][10]

Protective Principle: This principle lets in States to workout jurisdiction when it comes to international nationals for acts dedicated outside their territory that experience or are supposed to have a prejudicial impact upon the State. It is particularly used when it comes to issues of nationwide security.[11][12]

Universality Principle: This is the broadest of all the principles. The basis is that a State has the right, infrequently even the obligation, to exercise jurisdiction when it comes to the most serious violations of world prison legislation; for instance genocide, crimes against humanity, extrajudicial executions, war crimes, torture and forced disappearances. This concept also goes additional then the other ideas as there is hooked up to it the obligation to both prosecute the accused or extradite them to a State that will, referred to as aut dedere aut judicare.[13][14]

Supranational

At a supranational stage, international locations have adopted a range of treaty and convention responsibilities to relate the appropriate of particular person litigants to invoke the jurisdiction of national courts and to enforce the judgments acquired. For example, the member nations of the EEC signed the Brussels Convention in 1968 and, subject to amendments as new international locations joined, it represents the default legislation for all twenty-seven Member States of what's now termed the European Union on the relationships between the courts in the different international locations. In addition, the Lugano Convention (1988) binds the European Union and the European Free Trade Association.

In effect from 1 March 2002, all the member states of the EU except for Denmark approved Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001, which makes main changes to the Brussels Convention and is immediately effective in the member nations. Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 now also applies as between the leisure of the EU Member States and Denmark due to an agreement reached between the European Community and Denmark.[15] In some legal spaces, a minimum of, the CACA enforcement of international judgments is now more uncomplicated. At a national level, the traditional rules nonetheless determine jurisdiction over persons who are not domiciled or habitually resident in the European Union or the Lugano area.

National

Many nations are subdivided into states or provinces (i.e. a subnational "state"). In a federation—as may also be found in Australia, Brazil, India, Mexico and the United States—such subunits will workout jurisdiction through the court techniques as outlined by means of the executives and legislatures.

When the jurisdictions of executive entities overlap one another—for instance between a state and the federation to which it belongs—their jurisdiction is a shared or concurrent jurisdiction. Otherwise, one govt entity may have exclusive jurisdiction over the shared house. When jurisdiction is concurrent, one government entity will have perfect jurisdiction over the different entity if their rules struggle. If the executive or legislative powers inside of the jurisdiction aren't restricted, or have best limited restrictions, these government branches have plenary power akin to a national policing power. Otherwise, an enabling act grants most effective restricted or enumerated powers.

Child custody circumstances in the U.S. are a prime instance of jurisdictional dilemmas caused by other states under a federal alignment. When folks and youngsters are in numerous states, there is the risk of different state court orders over-ruling every different. The U.S. solved this drawback by means of adopting the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The act established standards for figuring out which state has primary jurisdiction, which permits courts to defer the listening to of a case if a suitable administrative agency determines so.[16][17]

United States

United States federalcivil process doctrines Justiciability Advisory evaluations Standing Ripeness Mootness Political questions Jurisdiction Subject-matter Federal query Diversity Amount in controversy Supplemental Removal Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 Personal In personam In rem Quasi in rem Federalism Erie doctrine Abstention Anti-Injunction Act Sovereign immunity Abrogation Rooker–Feldman doctrine Adequate and independentstate flooring vteMain article: Federal jurisdiction (United States)

The primary distinctions between spaces of jurisdiction are codified at a national degree. As a common legislation machine, jurisdiction is conceptually divided between jurisdiction over the subject material of a case (called in rem) and jurisdiction over the particular person (known as in personam).[18] A court might use jurisdiction over assets positioned inside of the perimeter of its powers with out regard to non-public jurisdiction over the litigants; this is an instance of in rem jurisdiction.

A court whose subject matter jurisdiction is restricted to certain types of controversies (for instance, suits in admiralty or suits the place the monetary amount sought is not up to a specified sum) is occasionally referred to as a court of special jurisdiction or court of restricted jurisdiction.

General and limited jurisdiction

A court whose subject matter isn't restricted to certain types of controversy is referred to as a court of normal jurisdiction. In the U.S. states, each and every state has courts of normal jurisdiction; most states also have some courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal courts (the ones operated by way of the federal government) are courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is split into federal question jurisdiction and variety jurisdiction. The United States district courts might hear best circumstances arising under federal regulation and treaties, cases involving ambassadors, admiralty instances, controversies between states or between a state and voters of every other state, court cases involving citizens of other states, and towards foreign states and voters.

Certain courts, specifically the United States Supreme Court and most state superb courts, have discretionary jurisdiction, that means that they are able to choose which circumstances to pay attention from amongst all the instances offered on attraction. Such courts most often only select to listen circumstances that might settle important and controversial issues of legislation. Though these courts have discretion to deny circumstances they otherwise may adjudicate, no court has the discretion to pay attention a case that falls outside of its subject matter jurisdiction.

Original and appellate jurisdiction

It may be vital to distinguish between unique jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. A court of original jurisdiction has the energy to hear cases as they are first initiated by way of a plaintiff, while a court of appellate jurisdiction would possibly handiest listen an motion after the court of original jurisdiction (or a lower appellate court) has heard the matter. For example, in United States federal courts, the United States district courts have unique jurisdiction over a number of different issues (as mentioned above), and the United States court of appeals have appellate jurisdiction over issues appealed from the district courts. The U.S. Supreme Court, in flip, has appellate jurisdiction (of a discretionary nature) over the Courts of Appeals, in addition to the state ideally suited courts, via approach of writ of certiorari.

However, in a particular class of instances, the U.S. Supreme Court has the energy to workout authentic jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1251, the Supreme court has original and unique jurisdiction over controversies between two or extra states, and authentic (however non-exclusive) jurisdiction over circumstances involving officers of overseas states, controversies between the federal govt and a state, movements by a state in opposition to the electorate of another state or overseas country.

Example of jurisdiction

As a practical example of court jurisdiction, as of 2013 Utah has five varieties of courts, each and every for various legal matters and different bodily territories.[19] One-hundred-and-eight judges oversee Justice Courts, which care for site visitors and parking citations, misdemeanor crimes, and most small claims instances. Seventy-one judges preside over District Courts, which handle civil cases exceeding small claims limits, probate regulation, prison criminal cases, divorce and child custody instances, some small claims, and appeals from Justice Courts. Twenty-eight judges deal with Juvenile Court, which oversees most people beneath 18 years outdated who're accused of a crime, as well as cases of alleged child abuse or neglect; critical crimes committed through Sixteen or 17 yr old persons may be referred to the District Courts. Seven judges in the Appeals Court listen maximum felony appeals from District Courts, all appeals from juvenile court and all domestic/divorce cases from District Court, as well as some circumstances transferred to them via the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court seats five judges who listen appeals on first-degree felonies (the maximum severe) together with capital crimes, as well as all civil cases from District Court (excepting divorce/home circumstances). The Supreme Court additionally oversees circumstances involving interpretation of the state Constitution, election matters, judicial behavior, and alleged misconduct via attorneys. This instance shows how matters arising in the similar bodily territory may well be noticed in different courts. A minor site visitors infraction originating in Orem, Utah is handled via the Orem Justice Court. However, a second-degree felony arrest and a first-degree criminal arrest in Orem would be under the jurisdiction of the District Court in Provo, Utah. If each the minor site visitors offense and the criminal arrests ended in guilty verdicts, the visitors conviction may well be appealed to the District Court in Provo, while the second-degree prison appeal can be heard by means of the Appeals Court in Salt Lake City and the first-degree felony appeal would be heard by the Supreme Court. Similarly for civil matters, a small claims case bobbing up in Orem would most likely be heard in the Orem Justice Court, while a divorce filed by way of an Orem resident could be heard by means of the District Court in Provo. The above examples follow only to circumstances of Utah state regulation; any case underneath Federal jurisdiction would be handled via a different court machine. All Federal cases bobbing up in Utah are underneath the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and would be heard in a single of three Federal courthouses.

Colloquially

The word "jurisdiction" is also used, particularly in casual writing, to refer to a state or political subdivision most often, or to its executive, fairly than to its prison authority.[20]

Franchise jurisdiction

In the historical past of English commonplace regulation, a jurisdiction could be held as a form of belongings (or extra precisely an incorporeal hereditament) called a franchise. Traditional franchise jurisdictions of more than a few powers have been held via municipal companies, religious homes, guilds, early universities, the Welsh Marches, and counties palatine. Types of franchise courts integrated courts baron, courts leet, merchant courts, and the stannary courts that handled disputes involving the tin miners of Cornwall. The unique royal charters of the American colonies incorporated broad grants of franchise jurisdiction together with different governmental powers to firms or folks, as did the charters for lots of different colonial corporations similar to the British East India Company and British South Africa Company. Analogous jurisdiction existed in medieval times on the European Continent. Over the path of the 19th and twentieth centuries, franchise jurisdictions had been largely eliminated. Several formerly important franchise courts were not officially abolished until Courts Act of 1971.

References

^ .mw-parser-output cite.quotationfont-style:inherit.mw-parser-output .quotation qquotes:"\"""\"""'""'".mw-parser-output .id-lock-free a,.mw-parser-output .quotation .cs1-lock-free abackground:linear-gradient(clear,transparent),url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Lock-green.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat.mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration abackground:linear-gradient(transparent,transparent),url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg")right 0.1em heart/9px no-repeat.mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription abackground:linear-gradient(clear,transparent),url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg")right 0.1em heart/9px no-repeat.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registrationcolour:#555.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration spanborder-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:assist.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon abackground:linear-gradient(clear,clear),url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg")correct 0.1em center/12px no-repeat.mw-parser-output code.cs1-codecolor:inherit;background:inherit;border:none;padding:inherit.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-errordisplay:none;font-size:100%.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-errorfont-size:100%.mw-parser-output .cs1-maintdisplay:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em.mw-parser-output .cs1-formatfont-size:95%.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-leftpadding-left:0.2em.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-rightpadding-right:0.2em.mw-parser-output .citation .mw-selflinkfont-weight:inheritBoister, Neil (2018). An introduction to transnational prison legislation. p. 247. ISBN 9780198795995. OCLC 1035427772. ^ SS Lotus (France v Turkey), 1927 PCIJ sequence A No.10, para 19 ^ Ibid., para 19 ^ "ICJ-CIJ.org". icj-cij.org. Archived from the authentic on 3 December 2005. Retrieved 8 May 2018. ^ Gideon Boas, Public International Law: Contemporary Principle and Perspectives (Edward Elgar 2012) pp251-254. ^ Malcolm Shaw, International Law (6th version, Cambridge University Press 2008) pp652-659. ^ Gideon Boas, Public International Law: Contemporary Principle and Perspectives (Edward Elgar 2012) pp255-256. ^ Malcolm Shaw, International Law (sixth edition, Cambridge University Press 2008) pp659-664. ^ Gideon Boas, Public International Law: Contemporary Principle and Perspectives (Edward Elgar 2012) pp257-258. ^ Malcolm Shaw, International Law (sixth edition, Cambridge University Press 2008) pp6664-666. ^ Gideon Boas, Public International Law: Contemporary Principle and Perspectives (Edward Elgar 2012) pp256-257. ^ Malcolm Shaw, International Law (sixth version, Cambridge University Press 2008) pp666-668. ^ Gideon Boas, Public International Law: Contemporary Principle and Perspectives (Edward Elgar 2012) pp258-259. ^ Malcolm Shaw, International Law (6th version, Cambridge University Press 2008) pp668-686. ^ http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:299:0062:0070:EN:PDF ^ "Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act Summary". Uniform Laws Commission. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Archived from the authentic on 10 October 2017. Retrieved 28 June 2017. ^ Adam Leitman Bailey, Dov Treimann (February 19, 2019). "Court of Appeals to Decide Two Cases With Major Landlord-Tenant Implications". New York Law Journal. ^ LII Staff (2007-08-06). "Jurisdiction". LII / Legal Information Institute. Archived from the unique on 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2016-06-23. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the unique on 2016-10-26. Retrieved 2016-08-07.CS1 maint: archived reproduction as title (link) ^ "Jurisdiction - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary". Archived from the unique on 2009-04-24. See additionally, e.g., "Metro's Billion To-Do List," Archived 2017-10-Thirteen at the Wayback Machine in The Washington Post: "Local jurisdictions are also facing shortfalls, and much will depend on the economy and political decisions at the local, state and federal levels"; "Teacher pension pinch," in The Baltimore Sun: "Large, affluent jurisdictions have scores of high-salaried teachers with correspondingly higher pension costs."

External hyperlinks

Wikiquote has quotations similar to: JurisdictionCornell.edu Supreme Court Decision on the Guantánamo Bay jurisdiction Jurisdiction As Property – franchise jurisdictionAuthority control BNE: XX532015 LCCN: sh85071077 MA: 2776949292 NDL: 00564891 Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jurisdiction&oldid=1016531248"