Chapter 1: An Introduction to American Courts
p. 3
1
An Introduction to American Courts
I.
Some Introductory Comments
ED
II.
The Two American Court Systems
III.
IT
The Structure of State Court Systems
IB
IV.
The Structure of the Federal Court System
H
V.
O
The Subject Matter Jurisdiction of State Courts: General Principles
PR
VI.
The Subject Matter Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: General Principles
U
VII.
D
American Courts: Summary of Basic Principles N
.E
O
U
TI
[Link] Introductory Comments
ST
U
@
IB
The purpose of this book is to introduce you to the process of civil litigation in American courts. To
an
help you understand this process, the book includes not only cases—the staple of most first-year
TR
courses—but a variety of other materials as well, including explanatory text, multiple choice
sh
questions, hypotheticals, and questions for further study.
ho
IS
First-year law casebooks have traditionally tended to “hide the ball,” leaving students to struggle
BS
ED
with complex problems without much guidance or background. This book starts from a different
premise: that you will learn more from class preparation and from class if the coursebook provides
R
explanatory material to accompany the cases. We explain basic principles fully and (departing
again from tradition) we answer most of the questions that we pose in our notes. Even with such
explanations, much sophisticated material remains for you and your procedure professor to work
through in class. A firm grasp of the basics will help you to address the complex issues more
effectively.
p. 4This chapter and the next introduce basic concepts about litigation in American courts. We
then turn to a fundamental question that arises at the beginning of every lawsuit: In which court
should a lawyer file (i.e., start) the case? As these chapters explain, counsel must consider three
requirements in choosing a proper court: subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and
venue.
First, the court must have subject matter jurisdiction over the case, that is, authority to hear the
type of dispute at issue. If you want to sue someone for hitting your car, you need to figure out
which courts have the power to hear motor vehicle accident cases. Can a federal court hear this
type of dispute? How about a state court? If a state court can hear it, which of the various courts
within the state court system is authorized to hear it? The answers to these questions require an
understanding of the concept of subject matter jurisdiction. Chapters 3 through 5 analyze this
fundamental requirement.
Second, the court must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Lawsuits are a great
inconvenience to defendants. Consequently, both the United States Constitution and statutes
restrict the power of courts to force a defendant from one state to appear and defend a lawsuit in
another. If Stein lives in Colorado and hits Fernandez’s car in Denver, can Fernandez sue Stein
for his injury in Nebraska? The answer depends on whether the Nebraska court has personal
jurisdiction over Stein, that is, the power to force her to appear in a Nebraska court to defend the
case. Chapters 6 through 9 introduce the accepted bases on which a court can exercise personal
jurisdiction.
Third, the plaintiff must choose a court that is an authorized venue for the action under the
relevant venue statute. Venue defines which courts within a court system (e.g., the California
ED
state court system) can hear a particular suit. If you live in California and have an accident in Los
Angeles, can the driver of the other car sue you in a state court in San Francisco? The answer to
this question turns on whether the San Francisco court is “a proper venue” under California venue
IT
statutes. While personal jurisdiction restricts a court’s power over an out-of-state defendant,
IB
venue regulates which specific court within a court system may hear a particular case. Chapters
11 and 12 discuss venue and transfers of venue.
H
O
After analyzing these three principles that determine where a suit may be brought, we turn to the
actual process of litigation. Several chapters analyze pleadings, the documents by which parties
PR
commence a case and state their positions on the issues in dispute. We then turn to the problem
U
of joinder, the rules governing who can be made parties to a single case and the scope of claims
D
N
that may be asserted in a single action. Several chapters cover pretrial discovery of evidence, the
.E
process by which parties exchange relevant information before trial. Later chapters cover trial
O
U
procedure, motions that may resolve a case prior to or during trial, and complex issues involving
TI
ST
the substantive law that applies to claims litigated in federal court. The book closes with an
examination of appeals and of claim preclusion and issue preclusion, two doctrines that limit
U
@
relitigation of claims or issues resolved in a prior case.
IB
an
Students, please take note: There is no one way to structure the Civil Procedure course. While
TR
sh
there is a fairly broad consensus on the core issues that should be covered in the course,
procedure teachers often present them in a different order than they appear in this coursebook.
ho
IS
So don’t be surprised if your professor takes the chapters out of order or, as is frequently the case
BS
where the course is allocated fewer credits, does not cover certain chapters at all.
ED
II.p. 5The Two American Court Systems
R
Let’s start with some basics. The Framers of the United States Constitution chose to create a
federal form of government, in which governmental power is shared between a national
government—the federal government—and state governments in each state of the union.
The original states existed long before the Constitution was adopted, and each had its own court
system. The Framers saw no reason to abolish these state courts, which functioned well enough
in many respects. However, they did see the need for a set of national courts that could hear
certain types of cases that implicate national interests or pose significant risks of local bias.
Consequently, in Article III of the United States Constitution, they empowered Congress to
establish a separate system of federal courts, which co-exists with the courts of the states.
Each of these court systems has trial courts, in which cases are litigated through trial, as well as
appellate courts, which hear appeals from the trial courts within that system. Before we explore
the subject matter jurisdiction of state and federal courts, we will look briefly at the structure of
state court systems and of the federal court system.
While this coursebook focuses on the state and federal courts, the heading above—The Two
American Court Systems—is actually a serious misnomer, since there are many more than two
systems of courts in the United States. Many American Indian tribes maintain tribal courts, which
adjudicate cases involving tribal members and cases arising on Indian reservations. See
generally William Canby, American Indian Law in a Nutshell 67–69 (6th ed. 2015). In addition,
many agencies of both the states and the federal government adjudicate claims related to their
administrative roles. For example, state departments of employment frequently adjudicate
unemployment claims. State motor vehicle bureaus may administer license revocation
proceedings. At the federal level, the Social Security Administration has an adjudicatory division
that hears claims for benefits and the National Transportation Safety Board entertains claims
involving denial or revocation of pilot licenses. Such administrative agencies are legion, and
collectively hear a great many more claims than state and federal courts do. (The Social Security
Administration website states that its 1,500 administrative law judges conduct about 650,000
hearings each year. See [Link]/appeals (last visited April 30, 2024).) Such bodies—studied
ED
in the course on Administrative Law—have their own procedural rules for processing claims,*1
which may or may not look much like the civil procedure rules that we cover in this book.
IT
III.p. 6The Structure of State Court Systems
IB
H
Every state has a set of trial courts, or courts of original jurisdiction, in which cases are filed and
O
litigated through final judgment. Since the states establish their own court systems they can call
PR
their courts whatever they like, and states have chosen different names and configurations for
U
their courts. For example, in New Jersey and California, the trial courts of general jurisdiction are
D
called superior courts; in Texas, they are called district courts; in Florida, circuit courts; in New
N
.E
York, some of them are, surprisingly, called supreme courts.
O
U
In most states, the plaintiff commences litigation by filing a pleading called a complaint in the trial
TI
ST
court, setting forth her claims against the defendant. The defendant files an answer to the
U
complaint setting forth his position on the claims alleged by the plaintiff and any defenses he has
@
IB
to the claims in the complaint. The parties develop the facts relevant to their claims and defenses
an
through discovery—the process of production of evidence from opposing parties and witnesses—
TR
in the trial court. If the case goes to trial, it will be tried in that court, and a final judgment will be
sh
entered there for the winning party.
ho
IS
In addition to trial courts of broad jurisdiction, most states also have several specialized trial
BS
ED
courts with limited subject matter jurisdiction. Often, there is a probate or family court, which has
jurisdiction over estates, guardianships, divorces, child support, and other domestic matters.
There may also be a housing court, which handles landlord-tenant cases; a land court, which
R
deals with cases involving interests in or title to real property; a small claims court; or others
suited to local needs. Some of our thirstier states have “water courts,” which decide the allocation
of water resources. While such courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, they are still trial
courts, that is, they are the courts in which cases within that court’s jurisdiction are filed, litigated,
tried, and decided. Lastly, many states have municipal courts that handle relatively minor criminal
and civil matters. See generally Daniel Meador & Gregory Mitchell, American Courts 11-13 (4th
ed. 2021).
The creation of state court systems. The configuration of broad trial courts and specialized
courts differs from state to state. Who decides which state courts will exist within a state court
system and which trial court will hear which cases? If a lawyer decides to bring a tort case in a
New Mexico state court, how would she find out which court within the New Mexico court system
has the authority to hear it?
Each state determines the structure of its state court system for itself. Some state constitutions
specify broad aspects of the structure of that state’s courts. In most states, the state legislature
prescribes the structure of the state courts and determines the subject matter jurisdiction of each
court within the state. Thus, counsel should review the New Mexico statutes (laws passed by the
state legislature) defining the jurisdiction of the various trial courts within the state, to determine
which one has statutory authority to hear tort claims. If she sued in a Minnesota court, she would
search the Minnesota statutes governing subject matter jurisdiction of its trial courts, and so on.
p. 7Every state also has at least one appellate court that hears appeals from trial courts within the
state. Typically, a state will have an intermediate appellate court, which hears most appeals from
the trial courts. (In a few smaller states, there are only trial courts and a state supreme court,
ED
which hears all appeals.) There may be one intermediate appellate court covering the entire state,
or there may be several units of the appellate court. Illinois, for example, is divided into five
geographic appellate districts, each with its own intermediate appellate court to hear appeals from
IT
trial courts within that district. If you appeal a judgment rendered by a trial court in Edwards
IB
County, which is within the Fifth Appellate District, your appeal goes to the Appellate Court for the
Fifth Appellate District. If you appeal a case tried in Cass County, your appeal would go to the
H
Appellate Court for the Fourth Appellate District.
O
In states with intermediate appellate courts, litigants usually have a right to appeal to that
PR
appellate court. The party who loses the appeal may ask the state’s highest court—usually, but
U
not always, called the state supreme court—to take further review of a case. However, in most
D
N
states the state’s highest court is not required to hear such appeals. It chooses whether to grant
.E
further review (appeal by permission or discretionary appeal) and typically does so only in cases
O
U
that pose novel issues of law or involve important public issues.*2
TI
ST
Figures 1–1 and 1–2 illustrate the structure of two state court systems. (There is a good
U
@
discussion of the structure of state court systems in Daniel Meador & Gregory Mitchell, American
IB
Courts 11–19 (4th ed. 2021).)
an
TR
sh
Figure 1–1: STRUCTURE OF THE ILLINOIS STATE COURT SYSTEM
ho
IS
BS
ED
R
Figure 1–2: STRUCTURE OF THE IOWA STATE COURT SYSTEM
ED
IT
IB
H
O
p. 8As Figures 1–1 and 1–2 illustrate, the court systems in these two states are not exactly the
PR
same, but both systems include trial courts, one or more intermediate appellate courts, and a
state supreme court. As the mechanic said when asked how he could work on so many different
U
kinds of cars, “They’re all a little bit different, but they’re all basically the same.”
D
N
.E
O
[Link] Structure of the Federal Court System
U
TI
ST
U
Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution provides that “[t]he judicial Power of the
@
IB
United States [that is, the federal government], shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and . . .
an
such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” U.S. Const. art.
TR
III, § 1. Thus, the United States Supreme Court is created by the Constitution itself. But the
sh
decision whether to create “inferior” federal courts, that is, federal trial courts or federal appellate
ho
IS
courts below the Supreme Court, is left by Article III, Section 1 for Congress to decide.
BS
ED
Congress might have decided not to create any lower federal courts. If so, all cases would be
litigated through trial in state courts. However, the first Congress favored a strong national
R
government and immediately exercised its authority in Article III, Section 1 by creating lower
federal courts, in the Judiciary Act of 1789.*3 Since then Congress has periodically revised the
structure and jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, but both federal trial courts and federal
appellate courts below the Supreme Court have operated continuously since the First Judiciary
Act.
The federal trial courts are called the federal district courts. These courts sit in ninety-four federal
districts within the United States. Each district comprises a p. 9state or part of a state. The federal
District of South Carolina, for example, includes the entire state of South Carolina. California, on
the other hand, because of its size and the number of cases it generates, is divided into four
federal districts, the Northern, Eastern, Central, and Southern Districts of California, with a federal
court sitting in each district. Figure 1–3 illustrates the configuration of the federal districts as of
2024.
Figure 1–3: GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF UNITED STATES FEDERAL JUDICIAL
DISTRICTS
ED
IT
IB
H
O
PR
U
D
N
As the diagram shows, the size of the federal districts varies substantially. For example, the
.E
Northern District of California is much smaller than the Eastern District. These district lines have
O
U
been drawn more with a view to population and the presence of commercial, litigation-generating
TI
ST
centers (e.g., San Francisco) than to square mileage. The number of federal judges sitting in each
U
district also varies depending on the caseload of the court.
@
IB
an
Like the trial courts of state court systems, the federal district courts are courts of original
TR
jurisdiction, that is, they are trial courts, in which cases are filed and litigated through to a final
sh
decision. The plaintiff commences the action there; the parties develop the facts through
discovery in the district court; if the case goes to trial, it will be tried in the district court, and a final
ho
IS
judgment will be entered there for the winning party.
BS
ED
Usually, a federal case ends with the final decision in the federal district court, either after trial or
by settlement or dismissal. However, a party who loses in the district court and claims some error
R
in the course of the litigation may appeal from the district court’s judgment to one of the federal
courts of appeals. Like the federal district courts, the courts of appeals (other than the Federal
Circuit) are organized geographically. Each hears appeals from the federal district courts p.
10sitting in a group of states. Figure 1–4 illustrates the geographic scope of the federal courts of
appeals. For example, if a case is filed, litigated, and decided in the District of Maine, an appeal
from the district court’s judgment will go to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. An appeal
from a case decided in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois goes to the
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and so on.*4
Figure 1–4: GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF
APPEALS
ED
IT
IB
H
O
PR
U
D
N
The United States Supreme Court sits at the top of the federal court system. A litigant who loses
.E
an appeal in the court of appeals may ask the Supreme Court to review that court’s legal rulings.
O
U
Unlike appeals to the federal courts of appeals, review in the Supreme Court is almost always
TI
ST
discretionary, that is, the Court chooses to review only those cases that involve important federal
U
issues or conflicts in lower courts’ interpretation of federal law. The Supreme Court only grants
@
certiorari (agrees to review) in a small percentage of the cases in which review is sought—
IB
an
perhaps one to two percent. Thus, the decision of the court of appeals usually ends the case.
TR
Figure 1–5 illustrates the relationship of the trial and appellate courts in the federal court system.
sh
Figure 1–5: THE THREE LEVELS OF THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM*5
ho
IS
BS
ED
R
The unique role of the United States Supreme Court. We have described two separate court
systems, each operating independent of the other. But the United States Supreme Court has a
unique role in our federal system. Each state supreme court is the court of last resort for most
cases tried in that state’s courts. For example, if a case involves the meaning of an Iowa statute,
the Iowa Supreme Court, as the p. 11highest court of Iowa, would be the highest court that could
review and determine its meaning. However, when issues of federal law are litigated in a state
court case, the losing party may ask the United States Supreme Court to review the state court’s
decisions on those federal issues. 28 U.S.C. § 1257.
Suppose, for example, that parties litigate a case in an Iowa state court in which the plaintiff seeks
to enforce rights under a federal statute. (As we will see, cases involving federal law can usually
ED
be litigated in state courts.) The Iowa court holds the federal statute unconstitutional, and the Iowa
Supreme Court affirms that holding. The party who lost this case may ask the United States
Supreme Court to review the state court’s ruling on the constitutionality of the federal statute. This
IT
power of the United States Supreme Court to review issues of federal law, whether litigated
IB
initially in a state or a federal court, allows the Supreme Court to provide definitive rulings on
issues of federal law. Once it does, its rulings will bind all American courts, state and federal.
H
O
p. 12The United States Supreme Court
PR
The Supreme Court, which sits in this imposing edifice in Washington, D.C., is created by Article
U
III of the Constitution. As the highest court of the federal court system, it reviews cases that come
D
to it from lower federal courts throughout the nation. It also has jurisdiction to review cases
N
.E
decided in state courts when those cases raise issues of federal law. Justice Robert Jackson
O
U
once said of the Court, “we are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only
TI
ST
because we are final.”
U
@
The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the courtroom pictured here. Note the nine chairs
IB
behind the “bench” for the nine Justices who sit on the Court.
an
TR
sh
ho
IS
BS
ED
R
Frank Santzen, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
[Link] Subject Matter Jurisdiction of State Courts: General
Principles