general jurisdiction

简明释义

一般裁判权,一般审判权

英英释义

例句

1.In many jurisdictions, trial courts have general jurisdiction 普通管辖权 over most types of cases.

在许多法域中，初审法院对大多数类型的案件拥有普通管辖权。

2.A plaintiff may file a lawsuit in a court with general jurisdiction 普通管辖权 if the defendant resides in that state.

如果被告居住在该州，原告可以在具有普通管辖权的法院提起诉讼。

3.Courts with general jurisdiction 普通管辖权 can hear a wide range of cases, including family law and contract disputes.

具有普通管辖权的法院可以审理广泛的案件，包括家庭法和合同纠纷。

4.Federal courts do not have general jurisdiction 普通管辖权 over all matters, only those specified by federal law.

联邦法院并不对所有事务拥有普通管辖权，只有联邦法律规定的事项。

5.The state court has general jurisdiction 普通管辖权 over civil cases arising within its territory.

州法院对其辖区内发生的民事案件拥有普通管辖权。

作文

In the realm of law, the concept of general jurisdiction is crucial for understanding how courts operate and the extent of their authority. General jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to hear any type of case, regardless of where the events occurred or the parties involved. This contrasts with specific jurisdiction, where a court's authority is limited to particular cases arising from specific activities within its geographical boundaries. The implications of general jurisdiction are significant, as they determine the forum in which legal disputes can be resolved.One of the most notable examples of general jurisdiction can be found in state courts in the United States. For instance, a state court in California has general jurisdiction over all residents within its state. This means that if a resident of California is involved in a lawsuit, that lawsuit can be filed in a California court, regardless of whether the events leading to the lawsuit took place in California or elsewhere. This broad authority allows individuals to seek justice within their home state, fostering a sense of local governance and legal accessibility.However, general jurisdiction is not without its complexities. There are circumstances where a court may claim general jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. For example, if a corporation is incorporated in Delaware, it can be subject to general jurisdiction in Delaware courts, even for actions that occurred outside of Delaware. This principle ensures that entities cannot easily evade legal responsibilities simply by operating across state lines. It also highlights the balance between providing access to justice and protecting defendants from being dragged into courts far from their home jurisdictions.The rise of digital technology and online commerce has further complicated the landscape of general jurisdiction. With businesses operating globally, questions arise about where lawsuits can be filed. Courts have had to adapt their interpretations of general jurisdiction to account for the realities of the internet. For instance, a company based in New York that sells products online to consumers in California may find itself facing lawsuits in California courts. This evolution reflects the ongoing challenge of ensuring that legal frameworks keep pace with technological advancements and the changing nature of commerce.Moreover, the Supreme Court has made pivotal rulings regarding general jurisdiction that have shaped its application. In the landmark case of Daimler AG v. Bauman, the Court clarified the limits of general jurisdiction, emphasizing that a corporation must have substantial connections to a forum for a court to exercise general jurisdiction over it. This ruling underscored the need for a fair and reasonable basis for asserting jurisdiction, thereby protecting defendants from being subject to litigation in forums where they have little or no connection.In conclusion, general jurisdiction plays a vital role in the legal system by establishing the framework within which courts can operate. Understanding its principles helps individuals navigate the complexities of legal disputes and the court system. As society continues to evolve, so too will the interpretations and applications of general jurisdiction, ensuring that justice remains accessible while balancing the rights of defendants. The ongoing dialogue surrounding general jurisdiction reflects the dynamic nature of law and its ability to adapt to new challenges and realities.

在法律领域，一般管辖权的概念对于理解法院的运作及其权威范围至关重要。一般管辖权是指法院对任何类型案件的审理权，无论事件发生在哪里或相关方是谁。这与特定管辖权形成对比，后者是法院的权威仅限于特定活动在其地理范围内引发的特定案件。一般管辖权的影响是显著的，因为它决定了法律争议可以解决的论坛。在美国州法院中，一般管辖权的一个显著例子可以找到。例如，加利福尼亚州的州法院对该州内的所有居民拥有一般管辖权。这意味着如果加利福尼亚的一名居民涉及诉讼，该诉讼可以在加利福尼亚法院提起，无论导致诉讼的事件是否发生在加利福尼亚或其他地方。这种广泛的权威使个人能够在其本州寻求公正，促进了地方治理和法律可及性的感觉。然而，一般管辖权并非没有复杂性。在某些情况下，法院可能会对外州被告声称一般管辖权。例如，如果一家公司在特拉华州注册成立，即使其行为发生在特拉华州以外，它也可能受到特拉华州法院的一般管辖权。这一原则确保实体无法仅通过跨州经营而轻易逃避法律责任。它还突显了提供司法公正与保护被告免受远离其居住地的法院拖拽之间的平衡。随着数字技术和在线商业的兴起，一般管辖权的领域变得更加复杂。随着企业在全球范围内运营，关于诉讼可以在哪里提起的问题出现了。法院不得不调整对一般管辖权的解释，以考虑互联网的现实。例如，一家总部位于纽约的公司在线向加利福尼亚的消费者销售产品，可能会发现自己面临加利福尼亚法院的诉讼。这种演变反映出确保法律框架跟上技术进步和商业性质变化的持续挑战。此外，最高法院对一般管辖权做出了关键裁决，塑造了其应用。在标志性案例Daimler AG诉Bauman一案中，法院澄清了一般管辖权的限制，强调公司必须与某一论坛有实质性联系，法院才能对其行使一般管辖权。这一裁决强调了主张管辖权需要公平合理的基础，从而保护被告不被拖入与其几乎没有联系的法庭进行诉讼。总之，一般管辖权在法律系统中发挥着至关重要的作用，建立了法院运作的框架。理解其原则帮助个人驾驭法律争议和法院系统的复杂性。随着社会的不断发展，一般管辖权的解释和应用也将不断演变，确保司法公正仍然可及，同时平衡被告的权利。围绕一般管辖权的持续对话反映了法律的动态性质及其适应新挑战和现实的能力。