To begin with, it is necessary to mention that the issues of jurisdiction and venue in the legislative system are regarded to be closely linked with each other, and define the basis of the legislation system in a State.
First of all it is necessary to emphasize that the jurisdiction is generally regarded as the practical authority, which is created for performing the tasks and assignments of the legal body. Originally, these tasks and assignments are defined by the legislative system and the principles of regulating the law in a country. The fact s that, the term jurisdiction is often used to denote the geographical sphere and location to which the authority generally applies. According to Lloyd (2000): “Jurisdiction draws its substance from public international law, conflict of laws, constitutional law and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of its native society. Moreover, it refers to a court’s power over a particular defendant or an item of property. If a court does not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant or property, then the court cannot bind the defendant to an obligation or adjudicate any rights over the property.” It should be stated that these principles are related to jurisdiction in general, while there is an issue of personal jurisdiction exists. Personal jurisdiction, in its turn, may be initiated by a defendant. Moreover, this initiation often appears to be unintentional. The constitutional prerequisites for the corresponding judgement and legislation system are generally defined by the proper notice to the defendant, as well as the territorial jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction issues, which are closely linked with the principles of personal jurisdiction.
Another principle, related to the matters of jurisdiction is covered in the fact that each judicial system and the court structure imposes its own principles on the rules for defining who really may summon the jurisdiction in each of the different divisions. Additionally to the plaintiff’s opportunity of having a place of living, being of some particular nationality, these conditions do not meet the requirements of the residual requirements for plaintiffs and defendants. In the light of this fact it is necessary to cite Goodwin (2006), who stated that “The government may decide that individuals within the executive should have the power to make decisions, and the extent to which the exercise of this jurisdiction should be subject to review by the courts. This has constitutional implications in that many states operate on the basis of the separation of powers which requires that each branch of government operates as a check on the potential abuse of power by the others.” Thus, within the structure of the judicial syetm and the formalized legislation procedures, jurisdiction may be regarded as the provision of specialized functions, which is granted to citizens (individuals).
Thus, legislation is regarded as a set of rules and principles of granting individuals and citizens the legislative defense, and providing the principles of punishment for those, who violate the judicial system and legislative structure of a country.
As for the matters of venue, it should be stated that these are the integral part of the judicial system and the jurisdiction principles, which are regarded in this paper. The issues of venue and personal jurisdiction are regarded to be close in the practical sphere and the purposes of practical application of the judicial principles. Originally, venue is the factor of court location, which generally takes into consideration the location of both parties involved into the suing. It is hard to define whose location is more valid, as in some cases the residence of the defendant matters, while in another case the location of a plaintiff is crucial.
Brubaker (2000) emphasizes that “A lawyer should usually perform a joint analysis of personal jurisdiction and venue issues. Personal jurisdiction is largely a constitutional requirement, though also shaped by state long-arm statutes and FRCP 4, while the venue is purely statutory.” Consequently, it should be stated that the constitutional regard of the venue enables it to become an exclusive factor of prohibiting a court from regarding a case. For a better understanding of this feature, some examples should be taken into consideration. Originally, personal jurisdiction is often regarded as the limiting component of the whole judicial system. Thus, in the case of Volvo inc. v Heinzman, the plaintiff sued in Pennsylvania state court a car dealer department for damaging a car while transporting it through Pennsylvania. If the sue had been addressed to the US federal court system, it would have been regarded under the 28 USC § 1391, the general federal venue statute, as Pennsylvania is regarded to be a state where a substantial part of the occasions or blunders originate the claim occurred. Nevertheless, the US Supreme Court discovered that the defendant (Volvo inc.) did not have the required minimum of contacts in Pennsylvania, which was necessary for creating the personal jurisdiction case.
On the other hand, the venue may also be regarded as the limiting factor. Thus, let’s assume that J. was issued against B. for breaking J’s watering system on a lawn. Both stay in Texas, still, B. knows that J is going to leave the state for a week, and B realizes, that the case may be sued in some other state, as J has small chances to win the case in Texas. So, B. aims to serve J. with the process during J’s trip for an action filed in the state of J’s destination federal court. The fact is that this federal court has personal jurisdiction, based on J’s presence at the time process was served. Thus, the venue here is regarded to be a restricting factor.
As Brubaker (2000) stated in his research: “Venue is a concept distinct from jurisdiction, which focuses on the authority of a court to hear a particular case. The venue is concerned with the geographical location of the court where a lawsuit is commenced. However, unlike personal jurisdiction, there is no constitutional requirement for a proper venue in order to have a valid judgment.” Thus, there is a strong necessity to mention that the proper venue requires being established in both federal and state court systems, for the total jurisdiction system had an opportunity to function normally.
References
Brubaker, Ralph. “On the Nature of Federal Bankruptcy Jurisdiction: A General Statutory and Constitutional Theory.” William and Mary Law Review 41.3 (2000): 743.
Goodwin, Joshua Michael. “Universal Jurisdiction and the Pirate: Time for an Old Couple to Part.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 39.3 (2006): 973.
Lloyd, Todd. “Stretching Venue beyond Constitutional Recognition.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 90.3 (2000): 951.