Concurrent jurisdiction exists when only state courts have the power to hear a particular case.

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations

Annotation

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Concurrent jurisdiction exists where two or more courts from different systems simultaneously have jurisdiction over a specific case. This situation leads to forum shopping, as parties will try to have their civil or criminal case heard in the court that they perceive will be most favorable to them.

In the United States, concurrent jurisdiction exists to the extent that the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear actions that can also be heard by state courts. For example, when a party from Alabama sues a party from Florida for a breach of contract, the Alabama party can sue in either federal court (under its diversity jurisdiction) or in the state court located in Florida (under its personal jurisdiction over the defendant). Concurrent jurisdiction may also be created where the United States Congress, in creating a cause of action, permits the courts of the states to hear cases alleging that cause of action. For example, a state court may hear a claim for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.

Concurrent jurisdiction in the United States can also exist between different levels of state courts, and between courts and other government agencies with judicial powers. Different countries can also share concurrent jurisdiction over a case, where different countries have authority over the parties or events giving rise to the cause of action.

Title 28 of the United States Code, sections 1331 & 1332 give federal courts concurrent jurisdiction with the state courts over federal question and diversity cases.

In the Middle Ages, the Church expanded its jurisdiction in many areas of Europe widely beyond the original scope of ecclesiastical courts concerning spiritual or religious matters, thereby creating concurrent jurisdiction in many civil cases with the courts instituted by secular authorities.[1]

Lis alibi pendens
Original jurisdiction
Condominium

^ Johannes Baptist Sägmüller (1913). "Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction" . In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Concurrent_jurisdiction&oldid=909205508"

The Constitution does not require Congress to create lower federal courts. The Framers assumed that state courts would be competent to hear the cases included in Article III's definition of the judicial power of the united states. When Congress does choose to confer some of the federal judicial power on lower federal courts, state courts normally retain their jurisdiction as well. This simultaneous or concurrent jurisdiction of state and federal courts normally exists unless Congress enacts a law stating that the federal power shall be exclusive. Only in unusual circumstances, as when state jurisdiction would gravely disrupt a federal program, has the Supreme Court required an explicit grant of congressional authority for concurrent state jurisdiction to exist. Indeed, in the limited instance of diversity jurisdiction, the Framers intended concurrent jurisdiction to be mandatory, so that Congress could not divest state courts of judicial power they possessed before adoption of the Constitution.

Concurrent jurisdiction allows plaintiffs initial choice of a forum more sympathetic to their claims. In many circumstances, however, a defendant may supplant that choice by exercising a right under federal law to remove the case from state to federal court. (See removal of cases.)

State courts need not always agree to exercise their concurrent jurisdiction. If a state court declines to hear a federal claim for nondiscriminatory reasons tied to the sound management of the state judicial system, the Supreme Court will respect that decision.

When concurrent jurisdiction exists, state and federal courts may be asked to adjudicate the same rights or claims between parties at the same time. Ordinarily neither the federal nor the state court is required to stay its proceeding in such situations. However, the federal courts do possess a limited statutory power to enjoin pending state proceedings, and a state or federal court that is the first to obtain custody of property that is the subject of the dispute may enjoin the other.

Carole E. Goldberg -Ambrose
(1986)

Bibliography

Currie, David 1981 Federal Jurisdiction in a Nutshell, 2nd ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co.

Judiciary Acts , The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the lower federal courts. Under Article III, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, "The judicial Power of the Un… Jurisdiction , The geographic area over which authority extends; legal authority; the authority to hear and determine causes of action. Jurisdiction generally descr… Federal Courts , The U.S. judicial tribunals created by Article III of the Constitution, or by Congress, to hear and determinejusticiablecontroversies. The Constituti… Removal , REMOVAL The transfer of a person or thing from one place to another. The transfer of a case from one court to another. In this sense, removal general… Judiciary , The branch of government that is endowed with the authority to interpret and apply the law, adjudicate legal disputes, and otherwise administer justi… Habeas Corpus , [Latin, You have the body.] A writ (court order) that commands an individual or a government official who has restrained another to produce the priso…