16

Solutions Manual Legal Environment of Business: Online

Commerce, Ethics, and Global Issues 8th Edition Henry R.

Cheeseman

Completed download link:

https://testbankarea.com/download/legal-environment-business-online-

commerce-ethics-global-issues-8th-edition-solutions-manual-henry-r-

cheeseman/

Test Bank for Legal Environment of Business: Online Commerce,

Ethics, and Global Issues 8th Edition by Henry R. Cheeseman

Completed download link:

https://testbankarea.com/download/legal-environment-business-online-

commerce-ethics-global-issues-8th-edition-test-bank-henry-r-cheeseman/

Chapter 3

Courts, Jurisdiction, and Administrative Law

See you in Court!

I. Teacher to Teacher Dialogues

Twenty-first century technological advances have provided our students with all kinds of instant

access to information. These devices have provided students with a variety of preconceptions.

Among these, is the average undergraduate’s notion of how trials are conducted and the role of

attorneys in that process. Invariably these perceptions center on popular television series such as

Law and Order and Court TV. This is not all bad. Current media focus on numerous law-related

issues has generated a whole new wave of public interest in the workings of our legal system. The

downside is that the media has created many myths on the folklore of law and lawyers. In the world

of pop culture, no one knows until the end who really did it until a surprise witness shows up to

identify the bad guy. In more modern versions, the attorney first has a business relationship with the

client and then proceeds to get him or her acquitted. Regardless of the outcome, the process is

always full of glamour and intrigue.

The problem is that a trial rarely resembles the goings on found in the entertainment media.

Trials are long, tedious, emotionally and financially draining processes for all parties concerned. In

many ways, a trial represents a failure by the parties to reach some sort of satisfactory solution of

the issue beforehand. Rarely do the parties actually want to go through a labyrinth of pleadings,

motions, and the like, feeling all the while totally dependent on the sometimes questionable

competence of their attorneys. Unlike the make-believe world of entertainment, the job of an

attorney is to keep his or her client out of court. (This often needs some reinforcement with the

student.) The attorney’s professional advice should anticipate and resolve potential legal problems

before, rather than after the fact if at all possible.

Courts, Jurisdiction, and Administrative Law

17

It is against this backdrop that we should try to present a more realistic picture of how our

system works. We can basically start by discussing how few controversies actually get to the trial

stage and how even fewer of those are actually reported in the National Reporter System.

Additionally, a fair amount of time should be spent reviewing the growing trend towards

alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Personal experience examples might be helpful in illustrating

the growing trends towards ADR. To complete the cycle we can then proceed to itemize the key

steps used in a court trial.

Anyone who has dealt with a large governmental bureaucracy can readily appreciate the

frustrations of trying to get through the maze with sanity intact. The government’s burgeoning

growth of administrative agencies at every level is indeed cause for concern for its constituents.

According to statistics published by the U.S. Congress, the federal government alone has

approximately 2.8 million civilian employees working as of 2012. In spite of constant calls to

reduce the size of government’s role in the average person’s affairs, that role has grown

tremendously as reflected in these statistics. The media headlines may be focused on the goings on

in the capitol, but the real functions of government are carried out “in the trenches” by this “fourth

branch of government” every day. This chapter seeks to outline the basic ground rules about how

the agencies are created, how they are authorized to act, and what controls have been put in place so

as to protect the rights of both citizens and the government.

The basic function undertaken by these administrative agencies is to carry out the ministerial

functions necessary to the operation of the government. These functions are first authorized by what

are called organic statutes, which create the agency, and enabling statutes, which delegate certain

powers to the agency to act for the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of government. It is

interesting to note at the outset that the “clean functional lines” of the executive, legislative, and

judicial branches can and do often become quickly blurred when examining the breadth and scope

of administrative agency activities.

Once the existence of the agency is settled upon and its scope of authority is established, you

must then look to see if it is acting within the scope vis-à-vis the particular issue at hand. Remember

the basic assumption here is that the executive branch, legislative branch, or judicial branch has

chosen to designate and delegate a certain portion of its authority to act. This delegation is based on

the presumption that the agency can be expected to have certain levels of expertise, scales of

economy, and attention to detail which could not be readily expected of the policy makers. The next

step is to see if the power in question was in fact truly delegated, and if so, is it being properly

exercised by the agency?

The mechanisms for control of agency powers are relatively sparse given the scope of agency

activity. The key provisions for control of agency powers are found in the executive branch chain of

command and in the overview powers vested in the judiciary. In addition, there have been a number

of specific information access type statutes such as the Freedom of Information Act, Government in

the Sunshine Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act to help persons dealing with these agencies

to get through the labyrinth.

II. Chapter Objectives 1. Describe state court systems.

2. Describe the federal court system.

3. List and describe the types of decisions that are issued by the U.S. Supreme Court.

4. Compare the jurisdiction of state courts with that of federal courts.

5. Describe administrative agencies and the main features of administrative law.

III. Key Question Checklist If the dispute or controversy needs to be resolved in a court of law, which court has

jurisdiction?

Once jurisdiction is established, was the proper sequence of pretrial steps taken?

Chapter 3

18

Was the trial sequence properly followed?

After the trial is completed, are any appeals from the decision applicable?

Define administrative law.

List and explain the functions of administrative agencies.

Describe the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.

IV. Chapter Outline The chapter discusses the federal court system, state court systems, jurisdiction of courts, and

administrative agencies.

Introduction to Courts, Jurisdiction, and Administrative Law

There are two major court systems in the U.S., the federal court system and the court systems of the

50 states and the District of Columbia. Each of these systems has jurisdiction to hear different types

of lawsuits.

State Court Systems Limited-Jurisdiction Trial Courts

General-Jurisdiction Trial Courts

Intermediate Appellate Courts

Highest State Court

Limited-Jurisdiction Trial Courts – Hear matters of a specialized nature

Traffic courts

Juvenile courts

Justice-of-the-peace courts

Probate courts

Family law courts

Courts that hear misdemeanor criminal law cases

General-Jurisdiction Trial Courts – Hear cases of a general nature that are not within the

jurisdiction of limited jurisdiction courts

Testimony and evidence at trial are recorded and stored for future reference

Intermediate Appellate Courts – Intermediate courts that hear appeals from trial courts

Review the trial court record to determine if there have been any errors at trial that would

require reversal or modification of the decision

Highest State Court – Hears appeals from intermediate state courts

Business Environment: Delaware Courts Specialize in Business Disputes

Delaware has created a special Chancery Court to decide business litigation, with a reputation for

handling corporate matters. Delaware’s laws also tend to favor corporate management, so together

with the Chancery Court, the state has created an environment that encourages incorporation in that

state. Other states are beginning to follow suit and create their own variation of Delaware’s

Chancery Court.

Federal Court System

Special federal courts

U.S. district courts

U.S. courts of appeals

U.S. Supreme Court

Courts, Jurisdiction, and Administrative Law

19

Special Federal Courts – Federal courts that hear matters of specialized or limited jurisdiction

They include:

U.S. Tax Court

U.S. Court of Federal Claims

U.S. Court of International Trade

U.S. Bankruptcy Court

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Contemporary Environment: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

In 1978, Congress created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court, which is located in

Washington DC. The FISA Court hears requests by federal law enforcement agencies, such as the

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and National Security Agency (NSA), for warrants, called

FISA warrants, to conduct physical searches and electronic surveillance of Americans or foreigners

in the United States who are deemed a threat to national security.

U.S. District Courts – The federal court system’s trial courts of general jurisdiction

Most federal cases originate in federal district court

They are empowered to:

Impanel juries

Receive evidence

Hear testimony

Decide cases

U.S. Courts of Appeals – The federal court system’s intermediate appellate courts

These courts hear appeals from the district courts located in their circuit

These courts review the record of the lower court or administrative agency proceedings to

determine if there has been any error that would warrant reversal or modification of the

lower court decision

No new evidence or testimony is heard

Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court is composed of nine justices who are nominated by the president and confirmed

by the Senate. The president appoints one as the chief justice who is responsible for the

administration of the Court, while the other eight are considered associate justices.

Contemporary Environment: Process of Choosing a U.S. Supreme Court Justice

The president appoints Supreme Court justices, with the advice and consent of the Senate (majority

vote). This allows a form of balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of the

government.

Jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court – The Supreme Court hears appeals from the federal

district courts and from the highest state courts. Legal briefs are filed, oral arguments are made,

lower court records are reviewed, but neither new evidence nor testimony is heard. The Supreme

Court decision is final.

Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court – Congress has established the rules for the mandatory

appellate review by the Supreme Court, which may also elect to hear cases at its discretion.

Petitioners file a petition for certiorari asking for the Supreme Court to review their case. If the

Chapter 3

20

court decides to consider the matter, it issues a writ of certiorari. The court hears about 100 cases

each year.

The U.S. Supreme Court can issue several types of decisions:

Unanimous decision – In this case, all of the justices voting agree as to both the outcome

and the reasoning. Such a decision becomes precedent.

Majority decision – A decision by the Supreme Court is considered a majority decision if a

majority of the justices agree on the outcome and reasoning. This decision becomes

precedent.

Plurality decision – A plurality decision is when the majority of the justices agree on the

outcome, but not the reasoning. This settles the case, but does not serve as precedent.

Tie decision – In this case the winner in the lower court prevails. This does not serve as

precedent.

Concurring opinion – When a justice agrees with the outcome of the majority, but not the reasoning,

the justice will issue a concurring opinion explaining his or her stand.

Dissenting opinion – Any justice who does not agree with the decision may state his or her opinion.

Contemporary Environment: “I’ll Take You to the U.S. Supreme Court!”

This discusses the process necessary to win a review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Having a case

heard by the nation’s highest court is rare. Each year, approximately 10,000 petitioners ask the

Supreme Court to hear their cases, while fewer than 100 of these cases are accepted for full review

in a particular term.

Jurisdiction of Federal Courts

Federal Question – Federal courts have limited jurisdiction to hear cases involving federal

questions with no dollar amount limit.

Diversity of Citizenship – The federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases involving diversity of

citizenship. There must be diversity of state citizenship or the cases must be between a citizen and a

subject of a foreign country. The amount in controversy must be over $75,000.

Jurisdiction of State Courts – State courts hear cases that the federal courts do not have the

jurisdiction to hear. Federal courts may have concurrent jurisdiction with state courts to hear cases

involving diversity of citizenship.

Standing to Sue, Jurisdiction, and Venue

Standing to Sue – The plaintiff must have a stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.

In Personam Jurisdiction – In personam jurisdiction over the person is achieved by the plaintiff

filing a lawsuit with a court and by serving a summons on the defendant. If personal service is

unavailable, notice of the case by mail or publication in newspapers is allowed. Defendants

disputing the jurisdiction of a court may make a special appearance to argue their case, and cannot

be served while making this appearance.

Federal Court Case

Courts, Jurisdiction, and Administrative Law

21

Case 3.1 Service of Process: Chanel, Inc. v. Zhixian

Facts: Chanel, Inc. manufactures and distributes globally various luxury goods, including handbags

and wallets. The company’s products are protected by the federally-registered trademark “Chanel”

and monogram marks. Its principal place of business is New York City. Chanel filed a lawsuit in

U.S. district court against defendant Liu Zhixian, a resident of China, doing business through

various websites. Chanel alleges trademark infringement by the defendant. Having been

unsuccessful in locating the defendant in China for service of process because the defendant used

false, incomplete, and invalid addresses and phone numbers, Chanel moved for the court to

authorize service of process by e-mail.

Issue: Should the court grant plaintiff Chanel authority to serve the defendant by e-mail?

Decision: The U.S. district court granted plaintiff Chanel’s motion for alternative services of

process on the defendant.

Reason: The U.S. district court reasoned that under the circumstances, service of process by e-mail

satisfied due process requirements.

Ethics Questions: It is not ethical for a person to infringe on the trademarks of others. Trademarks

are, after all, property. Intellectual property has value, and its owner should be able to enjoy its use

and profitability.

Long-Arm Statute –A court can obtain jurisdiction over persons and businesses located in another

state through use of a long-arm statute, provided the defendant has had some minimum contact with

the state.

Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case Minimum Contacts: International Shoe Company v. State

of Washington

International Shoe had salespeople who sold shoes door-to-door within the state of Washington, and

were paid on a commission basis. They had no office in the state. Washington State determined that

they had failed to pay unemployment taxes on International’s employees, and served notice to the

organization on one of their Washington sales representatives, as well as by mailing the notice to the

company’s headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri. International made a special appearance to argue

that it had insufficient contacts within the state to warrant payment of the tax. The unemployment

office and appeals board, as well as various courts within the state, ruled against International.

International appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that International had

neither casual nor irregular contacts within the state, and was, therefore, subject to in personam

jurisdiction and service upon one of their agents, based on their “minimum contacts” within the

state. The Supreme Court clearly stated that the Due Process Clause permits jurisdiction over a

defendant in any state in which the defendant has “certain minimum contacts such that the

maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”

Federal Court Case

Case 3.2 Long-Arm Statute: MacDermid, Inc. v. Deiter

Facts: MacDermid, Inc. is a chemical company with its principal place of business in Waterbury,

Connecticut. Jackie Deiter, a Canadian citizen, was employed by Macdermid’s Canadian subsidiary

in Canada. MacDermid stores proprietary data on computer servers in Waterbury, Connecticut, and

Deiter had access to those servers. Despite the fact that Dieter had signed an employment contract

agreeing not to misuse or misappropriate MacDermid’s proprietary electronic data, she did so prior

to her termination of employment. MacDermid sued Deiter in U.S. district court in Connecticut,

asserting long-arm jurisdiction and diversity of citizenship. Deiter subsequently filed a motion to

dismiss the lawsuit, claiming the court did not have jurisdiction over her because she lived in

Canada and committed the alleged illegal acts in Canada. The district court granted Deiter’s motion

and dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. MacDermid appealed.

Issue: Does the U.S. district court in Connecticut have personal jurisdiction over Deiter?

Chapter 3

22

Decision: The U.S. court of appeals held that the U.S. district court in Connecticut had personal

jurisdiction over Deiter and allowed the case to go to trial in Connecticut.

Reason: The court reasoned that Deiter knew the proprietary information was stored on

MacDermid’s servers in Connecticut. Further, MacDermid was a Connecticut corporation.

Accordingly, the court concluded that jurisdiction in U.S. district court in Connecticut was

appropriate.

Ethics Questions: The defendant did not act appropriately in this case, and it was fair to require the

defendant to defend herself in court in Connecticut.

In Rem Jurisdiction – Courts may have jurisdiction over property found within the state, based on

in rem (over the thing) jurisdiction.

Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction – Attachment jurisdiction occurs when a plaintiff who has obtained a

judgment attempts to satisfy the judgment by attaching property located in another state.

Venue – The court with the jurisdiction that is located closest to where the incident occurred or

where the parties live should hear the lawsuit. Pretrial publicity may prejudice jurors and may lead

to a request for a change of venue in order to get a more impartial jury. Forum shopping is the

process of looking for a more favorable court without a valid reason, and is frowned upon by most

courts.

Forum-Selection and Choice-of-Law Clauses – Because many business agreements are formed

between people from different states and different countries, many contracts have clauses that

specifically address the state’s or country’s laws that will be applied in case of a dispute, in what are

known as choice-of-law clauses. Additionally, through a forum-selection clause, the parties agree

which court will have jurisdiction over a dispute if one should arise in their course of dealings.

Federal Court

Case 3.3 Forum Selection Clause: Fteja v. Facebook, Inc.

Facts: Facebook, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto,

California. During the Facebook sign-up process, a user is required to indicate that he or she agrees

to Facebook’s Terms of Service. The Terms of Service agreement contains a forum-selection clause

stipulating that any questions between Facebook and the user will be brought exclusively in a state

or federal court located in Santa Clara County, California. Mustafa Fteja, a resident of Staten Island,

New York, was an active user of Facebook.com. In order to create a Facebook account, Fteja

consented to the Terms of Service agreement. Fteja alleged that Facebook terminated his account

for discriminatory reasons. He sued Facebook in New York state court. Facebook moved to transfer

the case to U.S. district court for the northern district of California pursuant to the forum-selection

clause.

Issue: Is the forum-selection clause in the Facebook agreement enforceable?

Decision: The U.S. district court for the southern district of New York enforced the forum-selection

clause of Facebook’s terms of service and transferred Fteja’s case against Facebook to the U.S.

district court for the northern district of California.

Reason: The court concluded that Fteja consented to the terms of use and therefore to the forum-

selection clause. Fjeta agreed to litigate all disputes regarding his Facebook account exclusively in a

state or federal court located in Santa Clara County, California.

Ethics Questions: While it is legal for Facebook to contractually require its users to litigate against

the company only in Santa Clara County, California, some may question the ethics of such a

requirement. Nevertheless, Facebook users are charged with the responsibility of reading the terms

of service. Facebook membership is a choice the user voluntarily and willingly makes.

Courts, Jurisdiction, and Administrative Law

23

Jurisdiction in Cyberspace

Today, with the advent of the Internet and the ability of persons and businesses to reach millions of

people in other states electronically, particularly through websites, modern issues arise as to whether

courts have jurisdiction in cyberspace. Zippo Manufacturing Company v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. is an

important case that established a test for determining when a court has jurisdiction over the owner

or operator of an interactive, semi-interactive, or passive website.

Administrative Law

Administrative law is a combination of substantive law and procedural law.

Administrative Agencies – Federal administrative agencies are created by either Congress or the

executive branch, and have broad regulatory powers. State administrative agencies have a profound

effect on business. State administrative agencies are empowered to enforce state statutes. They have

the power to adopt rules and regulations to interpret the statutes they are empowered to administer.

Local governments such as cities, municipalities, and counties create local administrative agencies

to administer local regulatory law.

Cabinet-Level Departments – These are federal departments that advise the president and are

responsible for enforcing specific administrative statutes enacted by the U.S. Congress.

Powers of Administrative Agencies – The delegation doctrine states that an administrative agency

can be delegated powers to act in the stead of the legislative, executive, or judicial branches. Acts

outside their assigned scope have been declared unconstitutional.

Rule-making – Statutes have given administrative agencies the power to issue substantive

rules, provided that they follow the procedures established by the APA. They can also issue

rules that interpret existing statutes, as well as statements of policy explaining their

proposed courses of action.

Judicial authority – Administrative agencies often have the power to adjudicate issues

through administrative procedures, provided the procedural Due Process Clause of the

federal and state governments is followed.

Executive power – Administrative agencies are usually granted powers of investigation and

prosecution of violations of statutes and administrative rules and orders. They are also

granted subpoena power in order to acquire the necessary information.

Licensing – In order to enter into certain types of industries, statutes often require licenses

be acquired from administrative agencies.

Landmark Law: Administrative Procedure Act

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1946, establishes

procedures federal administrative agencies must follow in conducting their affairs. The APA

establishes notice requirements of actions a federal agency plans on taking. It requires hearings to

be held in most cases, and requires certain procedural safeguards and protocols to be followed at

these proceedings.

Administrative Law Judge – Administrative proceedings employ an employee of the agency, an

ALJ, as the sole determiner in each case. They issue an order stating the reason for their decisions,

which become final if not appealed.

Global Law: Judicial System of Japan

Comparatively speaking, there are much fewer lawyers and lawsuits in Japan than in the United

States. Culturally, Japan believes that confrontation should be avoided. In Japan, clients must

Chapter 3

24

usually pay a large, up-front fee (rather than a contingency fee) for lawyers to represent them, and

plaintiffs must pay a court filing fee based on the amount claimed (rather than a flat fee).

V. Key Terms and Concepts

Administrative agencies—Agencies that the legislative and executive branches of federal

and state governments establish.

Administrative law—Law that governments enact to regulate industries, businesses, and

professionals.

Administrative law judge (ALJ)—A judge, presiding over administrative proceedings, who

decides questions of law and fact concerning the case.

Administrative order—An ALJ’s decision is issued in the form of an administrative order.

The order must state the reasons for the ALJ’s decision. The order becomes final if it is not

appealed.

Administrative Procedure Act (APA)—An act that establishes certain administrative

procedures that federal administrative agencies must follow in conducting their affairs.

Administrative subpoena—An order that directs the subject of the subpoena to disclose the

requested information.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution— It provides that the federal government’s judicial

power is vested in one “Supreme Court.” This court is the U.S. Supreme Court.

Associate Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court—The eight other justices apart from the Chief

Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Cabinet-level federal departments—Federal departments that advise the president and are

responsible for enforcing specific administrative statutes enacted by Congress.

Change of venue—In certain circumstances, when pretrial publicity may prejudice jurors, a

change of venue may be requested so that a more impartial jury can be found.

Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court—Appointed by the president and responsible for

administration of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Choice-of-law clause— A contract provision that designates a certain state’s law or

country’s law that will be applied in any dispute concerning nonperformance of the

contract.

Circuit—The geographical area served by each U.S. court of appeals.

Concurrent jurisdiction—Jurisdiction shared by two or more courts.

Concurring opinion—An opinion that can be issued by a justice of the Supreme Court who

agrees with the outcome of a case but not the reason proffered by the other justices.

Delaware Court of Chancery—A special court which decides cases involving corporate

governance, fiduciary duties of corporate officers and directors, mergers and acquisitions,

and other business issues.

Dissenting opinion—An opinion which sets forth the reason why a justice of the Supreme

Court does not agree with a decision.

District—The geographical area served by a U.S. district court.

District of Columbia—Washington DC

Diversity of citizenship—A case between (1) citizens of different states and (2) a citizen of

a state and a citizen or subject of a foreign country.

En banc review—A review that can be requested by a petitioner in the U.S. court of appeals

after a decision is rendered by a three-judge panel.

Exclusive jurisdiction—Jurisdiction held by only one court.

Executive power—Administrative agencies are usually granted executive powers, such as

the power to investigate and prosecute possible violations of statutes and rules. This often

Courts, Jurisdiction, and Administrative Law

25

includes the power to issue an administrative subpoena to a business or person to obtain

information.

Federal administrative agencies—Agencies created by the federal government to enforce

federal regulatory statutes. Examples include the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC).

Federal question case—A case arising under the U.S. Constitution, treaties, and federal

statutes and regulations.

FISA warrant—Empowers a federal administrative agency, such as the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) or the National Security Agency (NSA), to conduct physical searches

and electronic surveillance of Americans or foreigners in the United States who are deemed

a threat to national security.

Forum-selection clause (choice of forum clause)—Contract provision that designates a

certain court to hear any dispute concerning nonperformance of the contract.

Forum shopping—Looking for a favorable court without a valid reason.

Full Faith and Credit Clause—A clause of the U.S. Constitution under which a judgment of

a court of one state must be given “full faith and credit” by the courts of another state.

General-jurisdiction trial court (court of record)—A court that hears cases of a general

nature that are not within the jurisdiction of limited-jurisdiction trial courts. Testimony and

evidence at trial are recorded and stored for future reference.

Highest state court—The highest court in a state court system; it hears appeals from

intermediate appellate state courts and certain trial courts.

In personam jurisdiction—Jurisdiction over the parties to a lawsuit.

In rem jurisdiction—Jurisdiction to hear a case because of jurisdiction over the property of

the lawsuit.

Intermediate appellate court (appellate court or court of appeals)—An intermediate court

that hears appeals from trial courts.

International Shoe Company v. State of Washington— A landmark U.S. Supreme Court

case that established the minimum contacts standard.

Judicial authority—Authority of an administrative agency to adjudicate cases in an

administrative proceeding.

Judicial review—Where an enabling statute does not provide for review, the APA

authorizes judicial review of federal administrative agency actions.

License—Many administrative agencies are empowered to issue a license before a person

can engage in certain professions or businesses. For example, the Office of the Comptroller

of the Currency (OCC), a federal government agency, issues charters for national banks.

Limited-jurisdiction trial court (inferior trial court)—A court that hears matters of a

specialized or limited nature.

Local administrative agencies—Agencies created by cities, municipalities, and counties to

administer local regulatory law.

Long-arm statute—A statute that extends a state’s jurisdiction to nonresidents who were not

served a summons within the state.

Majority decision—A decision of the U.S. Supreme Court where a majority of the justices

agree as to the outcome and reasoning used to decide a case.

Minimum contact— A nonresident defendant in a civil lawsuit must have had some

minimum contact with the state such that the maintenance of that lawsuit in that state does

not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Petition for certiorari—A petition asking the Supreme Court to hear one’s case.

Chapter 3

26

Plurality decision—A decision of the U.S. Supreme Court where a majority of the justices

agree as to the outcome of a case but not as to the reasoning for reaching the outcome.

Procedural administrative law—Establishes the procedures that must be followed by an

administrative agency while enforcing substantive laws.

Quasi in rem jurisdiction (attachment jurisdiction)—Jurisdiction allowed a plaintiff who

obtains a judgment in one state to try to collect the judgment by attaching property of the

defendant located in another state.

Rule of four— The votes of four justices are necessary to grant an appeal and schedule an

oral argument before the Supreme Court.

Rules and regulations—Adopted by administrative agencies to interpret the statutes that

they are authorized to enforce.

Service of process—A summons is served on the defendant to obtain personal jurisdiction

over him or her.

Small claims court—A court that hears civil cases involving small dollar amounts.

Special federal courts—Federal courts that hear matters of specialized or limited

jurisdiction.

Standing to sue—The plaintiff must have some stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.

State administrative agencies—Administrative agencies that states create to enforce and

interpret state law.

State courts—A separate court system that is present in each state, Washington, DC and

each territory of the United States. It includes limited-jurisdiction trial courts, general-

jurisdiction trial courts, intermediate appellate courts, and a supreme court.

State supreme court—The highest court in a state court system; it hears appeals from

intermediate state courts and certain trail courts.

Substantive administrative law—Substantive administrative law is law that an

administrative agency enforces—federal statutes enacted by Congress or state statutes

enacted by state legislatures.

Substantive rules—Rules issued by an administrative agency that has the force of law and

to which covered persons and businesses must adhere.

Supreme Court of the United States (U.S. Supreme Court)— The highest court in the land

located in Washington, DC.

Tie decision—A Supreme court decision where the number of votes cast by the justices

leads to a tie and the decision of the lower court is affirmed. It occurs when all nine judges

are not present.

Unanimous decision— A Supreme court decision where all the justices voting agree as to

the outcome and reasoning used to decide a case.

U.S. Bankruptcy Court—Special federal court that hears cases involving federal bankruptcy

laws.

U.S. Court of Appeals—The federal court system’s intermediate appellate court.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces—Special federal court that exercises appellate

jurisdiction over members of the armed services.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—A U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington,

D.C. that has special appellate jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Court of Federal

Claims, the Patent and Trademark Office, and the Court of International Trade.

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims—Special federal court that exercises jurisdiction

over decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims—Special federal court that hears cases brought against the

United States.

Courts, Jurisdiction, and Administrative Law

27

U.S. Court of International Trade—Special federal court that handles cases that involve

tariffs and international trade disputes.

U.S. district courts—The federal court system’s trial courts of general jurisdiction.

U.S. District of Columbia Circuit—The 12th circuit court, located in Washington, DC.

U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR)—An appellate court that

reviews an appeal by a federal law enforcement agency when it is denied a FISA warrant.

U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court—A court located in Washington, DC

that hears requests by federal law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) and the National Security Agency (NSA), for FISA warrants.

U.S. Tax Court—Special federal court that hears cases that involve federal tax laws.

Venue—A concept that requires lawsuits to be heard by the court with jurisdiction that is

nearest the location in which the incident occurred or where the parties reside.

Writ of certiorari—An official notice that the Supreme Court will review one’s case.

Zippo Manufacturing Company v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.—An important case that established

a test for determining when a court has jurisdiction over the owner or operator of an

interactive, semi-interactive, or passive website.

More download links:

Legal Environment of Business: Online Commerce, Ethics, and Global

Issues 8th Edition solutions

the legal environment of business 8th edition test bank

the legal environment of business and online commerce 8th edition pdf

legal environment of business: online commerce, ethics, and global

issues (8th edition)

the legal environment of business and online commerce 7th edition pdf

the legal environment of business and online commerce 7th edition pdf

download

the legal environment of business and online commerce pdf

legal environment of business cheeseman pdf

legal environment of business: online commerce, ethics, and global

issues pdf

legal environment of business 8th edition henry cheeseman