What is the difference between in rem jurisdiction and quasi in rem jurisdiction?
In rem jurisdiction is jurisdiction over a specific thing for the purpose of adjudicating the rights to that thing. For example, the government seizes a ship, claiming that it has been transporting drugs. The court whose jurisdiction includes the location of a ship has jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues relating to seizure of the ship, even if the court does not have personal jurisdiction over the owners of the ship. Quasi in rem jurisdiction is really a limited form of personal jurisdiction. Assume that X has a claim against Y. X lives in the State of New York; Y is not subject to service in New York and has never been there. However, Y owns a ship that enters port in New York. X, utilizing quasi in rem jurisdiction, can attach Y's ship to satisfy the debt, even though he cannot get personal jurisdiction over Y or obtain a personal judgment against Y. Quasi in rem jurisdiction has been severely limited by the courts because it raises serious due process concerns.
Why do we have so many different court jurisdictions for criminal offenses such as federal, state, and local?
It is matter of practicality. Federal jurisdiction for federal crimes, it is another government. State for State crimes and within the States; Counties and Cities. Cities have some autonomy, so do Counties and States and they can have any laws that is needed to enforce local ordinances, statutes and or regulations so long as it does not run afoul of the State or the U.S. Constitution.
What is the difference between “original jurisdiction” and “appellate jurisdiction”?
When something goes to court, a court has to deal with it and come to a conclusion on which side is right. If the losing side wants to appeal the result, it will have to go to a higher court to have the appeal heard. A court that can deal with the original case has original jurisdiction. A court that can deal with appeals has appellate jurisdiction. It is possible for a court to have both. For example, in England, criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates' courts, except for the most serious where the sentence is likely to be more than 6 months in prison. Magistrates cannot sentence to longer than that, so those cases go to Crown Court. The Crown Court can also hear appeals from the magistrates and then instead of a judge and jury, it sits as an appeal panel of a judge and two magistrates. So the Crown Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction.
Explain subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts...?
Here is the short answer..."Subject matter jurisdiction is the courts power to hear the type of claim. This is in contrast to personal jurisdiction which is the court's power over the defendant. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction if the claim is based on federal law. They also have jurisdiction if the plaintiff and defendant are from different states and the claim is for more than $75,000. Finally, if the court has jurisdiction over a claim, they also have jurisdiction over any other claims in the suit that arise from the same act. This is called supplemental jurisdiction and the courts have the option of declining such jurisdiction"
Explain the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts?
Most of the controversies that arise between individual citizens in the United States are jurisdictionally conferred on the States. The Federal courts have jurisdiction over specific subject matters. There are even specialized federal courts to handle specific matters like the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. But the primary areas of jurisdiction conferred on the federal district courts deal with controversies: Between citizens of different states having a certain minimum value. Controversies between States When the United States or one of its officials are being sued.