federal and state LAW

Student Name
Professor
Code
Date

Part 1
According to the constitution of the USA, where there is incomplete diversity, either due to the amount attached to the case or the citizenship of the parties, the lawsuit has subject matter jurisdiction to be heard in a state court. “If complete diversity does not exist, then the case cannot be filed in federal court under diversity subject matter jurisdiction. For the purposes of determining citizenship, an individual is a citizen of the state in which they maintain a primary residence, and an individual can only be a citizen of one state at a time. In this aspect, both Connor and Oliver are all citizens of California” (Scalia 40).
Yes, California court has a SMJ over Connor’s lawsuit against Walt. Furthermore, the California state court has a SMJ over Oliver. As observed in the case scenario, the Interstate safety highway act can be relevantly used for this case. In a broader perspective, the state court has general jurisdiction, and hence the determination of this case in the California state court can get enhanced. State courts, as research indicates have the authority and therefore, the ability to review all cases, either federal or state. Diversity is one of the most crucial elements used when determining the SMJ. On instances that diversity is incomplete, its usage is therefore limited. In this aspect, the state court has an authority to determine this case, and provide direction. In this aspect, the state court has SMJ over the case involving the two, i.

e., Walt and Oliver, also have personal matter Jurisdiction over the parties. Furthermore, research establishes that it’s sporadic for the state court to lack jurisdiction over some cases. Therefore, by considering the above-explained aspects, it is evident that the California state court has a Subject Matter Jurisdiction over the case. These are some of the aspects used to reach the conclusion (Weisburd, 23-89).
Part 2
On the other hand, the law states that a lawsuit involving two parties from different states, only has jurisdiction to be heard in a federal court. Also, the diversity ought to be complete for the case to be heard in a federal court.
Yes, Connor could have filed in a federal law court his lawsuit against Walt. Such could have been considered to be an aspect of diversity whose insights have been explained in the above subsections. Although the constitution of the United States of America outlines some regulation about the federal state court, its Jurisdiction and the types of cases that can be determined, this case can be considered unique due to the kind of compensation that is demanded by Connor (Eisenberg, 68-90). In his case against Oliver and Walt, he is asking for a settlement amounting to $85,000 to cover for physical injuries, pain and suffering, and the property damage caused to his vehicle. Therefore, using the interstate highway act, whose details are outlined in the case scenario, the federal court has a SMJ over Walt who does not happen to be a citizen of California, but a citizen of the Washington State. Furthermore, this case will get facilitated by the federal law court since the amount required for compensation in this aspect is $85000 and outweighs the set limit of $75000. According to the constitution of America, the federal jurisdiction is limited to certain types of cases, among them, cases that involve members of different states, and the amount in controversy is more than or exceeds $70000. Therefore, the federal court has a SMJ over Conner’s case against Walt because he is not a member of California, and the total amount of controversial compensation is way above the one as set by the constitution. In instances that the federal court lacks a Subject Matter Jurisdiction of a given case, then the fact gets dismissed immediately. Although enhancement of the same is effected as observed in this scenario, the federal courts require one of two bases to have a SMJ over a case to hear it. These are some of the crucial elements that will be used to determine the Jurisdiction of the Case of Conner against Walt and Oliver. Thus, the lawsuit has SMJ to be heard in either federal or state court.
 
Work Cited
Eisenberg, Theodore, et al. “Litigation outcomes in state and federal courts: A statistical portrait.” Seattle UL Rev. 19 (1995): 433.
Scalia, Antonin. A matter of interpretation: Federal courts and the law: Federal courts and the law. Princeton University Press, 2018.
Weisburd, Arthur M. “State Courts, Federal Courts, and International Cases.” Yale J. int’l L. 20 (1995): 1.