Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Extraterritorial jurisdiction plays a significant role in regulation of transnational anti-competitive practices. In the U.S., extraterritorial impacts in this field first arose from Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, [7] where Imperial Oil in Canada was ordered to be divested from Standard Oil.
The court found that all of the following acts, in combination, were sufficient contacts to create personal jurisdiction over the French organizations: sending letters to Yahoo!, suing Yahoo! and serving Yahoo! in California, and the suit resulting in orders that Yahoo!'s officers in California comply with French law.
The two main courts judging extraterritorial cases were the Shanghai Mixed Court and the British Supreme Court for China. [32] Similar courts were established for treaty countries, e.g. the United States Court for China. [33] These had jurisdiction over the concession areas, which formally remained under Qing sovereignty. [34]
The policing of transnational and international crimes is a challenge to state-based law enforcement agencies, as jurisdiction restricts the direct intervention a state's agencies can legally take in another state's jurisdiction, with even basic law enforcement activities such as arrest and detention "tantamount to abduction" when carried out extraterritorially. [3]
Territorial jurisdiction in United States law refers to a court's power over events and persons within the bounds of a particular geographic territory. If a court does not have territorial jurisdiction over the events or persons within it, then the court cannot bind the defendant to an obligation or adjudicate any rights involving them.
On November 2, 2017, a California district court granted an injunction against the enforcement of the order of the Supreme Court of Canada on the grounds that the order undermines the US law and threatens freedom of speech. [2] However, The Court of British Columbia dismissed Google's application (2018 BCSC 610) to respect the US judgment saying
Burnham v. Superior Court of California, 495 U.S. 604 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether a state court may, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of the state who is served with process while temporarily visiting the state.
Above them are the six California courts of appeal, each with appellate jurisdiction over the superior courts within their districts, and the Supreme Court of California. As of 2007, the superior courts of California consisted of over 1,500 judges, and make up the largest part of California's judicial system, which is in turn one of the largest ...