WARNING
These cites have not been checked!
ALWAYS check all cites before using any of them in your papers!
These cites look interesting, but that doesn't mean they're good quotes.
Jurisdiction Cases
Maybe, but not Checked
In re W. D. CAVITT on Habeas Corpus, Crim. No. 3508
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE
(1941) 47 Cal. App. 2d 698; 118 P.2d 846; 1941 Cal. App. LEXIS 1225
(2) Courts--Jurisdiction--Necessity--Jurisdiction Divested Pending Proceeding. --When by operation of law a court is divested of jurisdiction, it is without power to inflict a punishment or enforce a penalty for violations of law committed while it had jurisdiction. A court under such circumstances is equally without power to proceed in a matter of which it had jurisdiction at the time the action was commenced, unless some special provision be made for that purpose by statute.
(3) Id.--Jurisdiction--Necessity--Time When Necessary. --Jurisdiction is fundamental and must be continuing in the court throughout the proceeding, because it is jurisdiction alone that gives the court power to hear, determine and pronounce judgment upon the issues before it.
(4) Judgments--Void Judgments--Want of Jurisdiction--Jurisdiction Divested. --When a court that is divested of jurisdiction undertakes to pronounce a judgment in a cause which the court did not have jurisdiction to hear or try, such judgment is void ab initio, even though affirmed on appeal.
Maybe, but not checked
****Modern vs. Johnson 844 Fed. Supp. 940 Once defense has raised jurisdiction defense, plaintiff must provide proof of jurisdiction.
Jurisdicition is a 3 legged stool
Every court has a jurisdiction to determine in personam and in rem jurisdiction.
James vs. HRP, 852 Fed. Supp. 620 When personal jurisdiction is challenged plaintiff has burden to prove jurisdiction is proper.
Not checked
"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.
Not checked
"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp 150.
Not checked
"A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
Maybe, but not checked:
"Jurisdiction is fundamental. It is the primary question for determination by a court in any case for jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine. If a judgment is rendered by a court which did not have jurisdiction to hear a cause, such judgment is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132
Not checked
"Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.
Not checked
"A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.
Not checked
"A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.
Not checked
"Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris." Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
Not checked
"the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest." Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.
Not checked
"An action by Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has subject matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency, by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void." Doolan v. Carr, 125 US 618; City v Pearson, 181 Cal. 640.
Not checked
"Agency, or party sitting for the agency, (which would be the magistrate of a municipal court) has no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he is acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract." Schomig v. Kaiser, 189 Cal 596.
Not checked
"When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially". Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583.
Not checked
"A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational." ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284.
Not checked
"Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities." Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1.
Not checked
"The elementary doctrine that the constitutionality of a legislative act is open to attack only by persons whose rights are affected thereby, applies to statute relating to administrative agencies, the validity of which may not be called into question in the absence of a showing of substantial harm, actual or impending, to a legally protected interest directly resulting from the enforcement of the statute." Board of Trade v. Olson, 262 US 1; 29 ALR 2d 1051.
WARNING
ALWAYS check all cites before using any of them in your papers!
These cites have been checked, but when you use them, check them anyway. Mistakes happen!
Checked Jurisdiction Cases
OK:
When it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach the merits. In such a situation the action should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. [Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026, 1030]
OK:
“However late this objection has been made, or may be made in any cause, in an inferior or appellate court of the United States, it must be considered and decided, before any court can move one further step in the cause; as any movement is necessarily the exercise of jurisdiction.” Rhode Island v. Massachussetts, 37 U.S. 657, 718, 9 L.Ed. 1233 (1838)
OK:
“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 404, 5 L.Ed. 257, 6 Wheat. 264 (1821)
OK:
Where there is no jurisdiction over the subject matter, there is, as well, no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction. [John J. Joyce v. United States of America, 474 F.2d 215, 219] Joyce v. U.S., 474 F.2d 215, 219 (C.A.3 (Pa.), 1973)