Legal interpretation of Personal jurisdiction is the power of a court to determine a case of state residents on civil matters. In America courts of states are obliged to litigate cases of civil nature involving properties owned by citizens of that state. In that connection as a lawyer one has to make sure that actually the court that he or she has filed a suit has personal jurisdiction against defendant to avoid reversing of judgment on grounds of personal jurisdiction. This is because if the state that a case if filed has personal jurisdiction over the defendant then all other factors held constant the judgment will be respected, enforced and given full credit by every other state in the union. In the case of Mav photo Inc versus brand and Mandell technologies. Where the defendant is an Ohio based company and the plaintiff is a Miami based company it is not possible for may photo Inc to sue brand and Mandell in Miami. Suing Ohio Company in Miami would breach the principle of personal jurisdiction. Miami based company which is the plaintiff has to respect the fact that Ohio as a state has equal rights with Miami of regulating properties of the citizens of its territory. On exceptional if the brand and Mandell Company has serious operations in Miami regarding the photos licensing and taking then it can answer litigations against it by the brand and Mandell Company in Miami otherwise Miami courts would lack personal jurisdiction. This decision has been made in the light of the fact that different states in the US have equal rights and powers. This means that these states operates independently and have to be respected for their jurisdiction power. No state should assume that it has more power than the other in prosecutorial duties.
A person who commits a case in one state should be judged by that state even if the person is not a resident of the state because it has the same prosecutorial powers as his or her home states. This provision is therefore meant to ensure that people do not go over from one state to the other and commit crimes thinking that they would have to go and be tried in their states. In this case therefore, Miami based company which is the plaintiff has to respect the fact that Ohio as a state has equal rights with Miami of regulating properties of the citizens of its territory
The poisoned persons would not be able to sue for damages in Minneapolis. Eau Claire residents would be the plaintiffs and the restaurant which is situated in Minneapolis would be the defendant. In the case that suing would take place in a Wisconsin court it would be difficult to answer charges of damages done by a restraunt in Minneapolis from another state. The state of Wisconsin lacks jurisdiction on the properties of Minneapolis hence it is not legally prudent for the case to be handled by Wisconsin courts. The restraunt as the defendant has inalienable right of personal jurisdiction. In the eventuality the courts of Wisconsin decides the case against the restraunt for compensation of the damage there is fertile ground for appeal on the basis of personal jurisdiction. The spirit of federalism would only be preserves in legal corridors if real sovereign powers are exercised among the states. State of Wisconsin has no right to infringe on the sovereign powers of Minneapolis. However this does not rule out the possibility of damages to be compensated but with respect of the rule of law and procedural sobriety. Therefore, this decision is also meant to ensure that states respect the prosecutorial powers of each other states. They should be taken as equal power states where each state can prosecute crime that are committed within its jurisdiction. This is the principle of federalism where every state is assumed to have same and equal prosecutorial powers even if the states may not have similar rulings on the same case.
If the damages were done at the mall of America and the suit is done in New York courts then it is possible for litigation to take place. The rules of personal jurisdiction would apply because mall of America has an outlet in New York State. The state of New York has equal rights to regulate properties of mall of America like any other state. In this case principles of justice would require that plaintiff given priority. Irrespective of where it happened the case can effectively be decide in new York as the principal of personal jurisdiction does not require civil cases to be heard where the damage was done but only requires sovereignty of property control. This means that the principle of personal jurisdiciotn would be considered in hearing this case. If the crime was done anywhere and suite filed in New York, the provisions under federal statute gives power to New York to institution personal litigation since mall of America has a branch in New York.
In conclusion the rule of personal jurisdiction mostly applies on civil cases. Since these cases do not involve other countries other than America it is explicit that it is binding uniformly whether internet was used to transact business or not. Internet complexity would arise only if it was a case of America and another country. Under the spirit of federalism, every state is given equal prosecutorial rights compared to other states. This means that it would be possible for the case to be prosecuted in any other state so long as the crime is committed within the United States borders. Every state has its own respected property rights statute that would be used to give ruling in the above cases.
Buy Online Cheap Custom Essay.