Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
People v. Aguilar, 2 N.E.3d 321 (Ill. 2013), was an Illinois Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUF) statute violated the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
This personal jurisdiction is specific to the act, and a party cannot be sued for unrelated activity. In many instances, state long-arm statutes extend personal jurisdiction to the extent allowed by the U.S. Constitution. There are two kinds of personal jurisdiction, general and specific jurisdiction: [2]
Under these circumstances, the court found that personal jurisdiction was proper under a theory of national jurisdiction: the defendant had targeted the U.S. at large from outside of the territory and intended to avail himself of the opportunity of selling test answers to a U.S. graduate school entrance test to his most likely customers: Americans.
Illinois v. Missouri, 399 U.S. 146 (1970), was a per curiam decision determining a boundary line between the states of Illinois and Missouri. The case specifically assigned ownership of several islands in the Mississippi River. The court referred the case to a special master who filed a report, which was adopted by the court, decreeing that:
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a court within a state could assert personal jurisdiction over the author and editor of a national magazine which published an allegedly libelous article about a resident of that state, and where the magazine had wide circulation in that state.
An associate judge can hear any case, except criminal cases punishable by a prison term of one year or more, unless the associate judge has received approval from the Chief Judge of the circuit to hear other criminal cases. [29] The Illinois Courts Commission, composed of one Supreme Court justice, two Appellate Court judges, two circuit court ...
Personal jurisdiction is largely a constitutional requirement, though also shaped by state long-arm statutes and Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, while venue is purely statutory. It is possible for either venue or personal jurisdiction to preclude a court from hearing a case. Consider these examples:
what law is to be applied when courts sit in diversity jurisdiction: Olmstead v. United States: 277 U.S. 438 (1928) admissibility of illegally obtained phone wiretaps as evidence Wisconsin v. Illinois: 278 U.S. 367 (1930) federal power over state interests, Chicago Sanitary Canal: Taft v. Bowers: 278 U.S. 470 (1929)