Court Jurisdictcion

[Scooterdog]

Always check cases to see if anything new has happened. Here are some cases to help get started with a jurisdictional issue:

"A Justice's Court is an inferior court, and its jurisdiction
must be shown affirmatively by a party relying upon, or claiming
any right under, its judgments."  Jolley v. Foltz (1867),     C.
321.

     "A judgment is absolutely void if it appears that there was a
want of jurisdiction in the court rendering it either of the
subject matter or the person of the defendant."  Hahn v. Morse
(1868),     C. 391.

     "An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases
to represent the government." Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284
F.Supp. 94.

     "Judges not only can be sued over their official acts, but
could be held liable for injunctive and declaratory relief and
attorney's fees." Lezama v. Justice Court, A025829.

     "There is no common law judicial immunity." Pulliam v. Allen,
104S.Ct. 1970; cited in Lezama v. Justice Court, A025829.

     "Judge acted in the face of clearly valid statutes or case law
expressly depriving him of (personal) jurisdiction would be
liable." Dykes v. Hosemann, 743 F.2d 1488 (1984).

     "In such case the judge has lost his judicial function, has
become a mere private person, and is liable as a trespasser for
damages resulting from his unauthorized acts."
     "Judge's honesty of purpose and sincere belief that he was
acting in discharge of his official duty was not available as
defence in action."
     "Where there is no jurisdiction there is no judge; the
proceeding is as nothing. Such has been the law from the days of
the Marshalsea, 10 Coke 68; also Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall
335,351." Manning v. Ketcham, 58 F.2d 948.

     "A distinction must be here observed between excess of
jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the
subject-matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority and
for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction
is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible." Bradley
v.Fisher,13 Wall 335, 351, 352.

     "The immunity of judges for acts within their judicial role is
beyond cavil." Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1957).

     "Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone,
least of all in a sworn officer of the law."  In re McCowan (1917),
177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

     "All are presumed to know the law."  San Francisco Gas Co. v.
Brickwedel (1882), 62 C. 641; Dore v. Southern Pacific Co. (1912),
163 C. 182, 124 P. 817; People v. Flanagan (1924), 65 C.A. 268, 223
P. 1014; Lincoln v. Superior Court (1928), 95 C.A. 35, 271 P. 1107;
San Francisco Realty Co. v. Linnard (1929), 98 C.A. 33, 276 P. 368.

     "It is one of the fundamental maxims of the common law that
ignorance of the law excuses no one."  Daniels v. Dean (1905), 2
C.A. 421, 84 P. 332.

     "Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle, 50
Cal. App. 3, step 1, Super, 123 Cal. Rptr. 636, 639.

[tsunamix1]

  I got this from 1215.org,.... sure has been enlightening for me!

A court of record is a "superior court."

A court not of record is an "inferior court."

“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652

Criminal courts proceed according to statutory law. Jurisdiction and procedure is defined by statute. Likewise, civil courts and admiralty courts proceed according to statutory law. Any court proceeding according to statutory law is not a court of record (which only proceeds according to common law); it is an inferior court.

“The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the judgments of the former, none in favor of those of the latter, and that a superior court may be shown not to have had power to render a particular judgment by reference to its record. Ex parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212. Note, however, that in California ‘superior court’ is the name of a particular court. But when a court acts by virtue of a special statute conferring jurisdiction in a certain class of cases, it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time being, no matter what its ordinary status may be. Heydenfeldt v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. 348, 49 Pac. 210; Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195” 7 Cal. Jur. 579

The decisions of a superior court may only be challenged in a court of appeal.

The decisions of an inferior court are subject to collateral attack. In other words, in a superior court one may sue an inferior court directly, rather than resort to appeal to an appelate court.


Decision of a court of record may not be appealed.
It is binding on ALL other courts.

However, no statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme court) can second guess the judgment of a court of record. “The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]