Proper jurisdiction for injunctive relief not involving a monetary claim in Boston I am trying to figure out the proper venue for petitioning a civil injunction, a complicated problem in Boston. The pleading is for a mandatory injunction against the directors of a corporation located in Boston which does not involve any monetary claims. There are two possible venues: the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court and the Suffolk County Superior Court. I have read conflicting information. On one hand I have read that the Superior Court only hears cases involving claims over $25,000, however, I have also read that the the municipal court's jurisdiction only extends to cases cases involving monetary claims, and if a tort does not involve monetary damages, and only injunctive relief and does not fall into a special category (family, probate, etc), then it has Superior Court jurisdiction. Any opinions which it should be?
Short Answer The Superior Court is the court of general jurisdiction and the primary equity court will full authority over cases seeking injunctive relief. So, if the case does not fall into a category such as family court, probate court, or land court, the Superior Court is probably the correct court. The District Court has limited equity jurisdiction, but the wording of the statute giving it equity jurisdiction is ambiguous and doesn't appear to divest the Superior Court of any authority, so the Superior Court is probably correct, although it is hard to know without more information. For example, Housing Court is part of District Court (i.e. Boston Municipal Court), and so injunctions relating to landlord-tenant issues might properly be brought in that court. Superior Court Jurisdiction Superior Court original civil jurisdiction (i.e. opposed to appellate or criminal jurisdiction), other than territorial jurisdiction (I am assuming that Boston is actually the right location for your claim without knowing what it is for sake of argument) is as follows: The court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of civil actions for the foreclosure of mortgages, and of real and mixed actions, except those of which the land court or district courts have jurisdiction, of complaints for flowing lands, and of claims against the commonwealth. Except as otherwise provided by law, the court shall have original jurisdiction of civil actions for money damages. The actions may proceed in the court only if there is no reasonable likelihood that recovery by the plaintiff will be less than or equal to $25,000, or an amount ordered from time to time by the supreme judicial court. Where multiple damages are allowed by law, the amount of single damages claimed shall control. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 212, § 3. The court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, except those of which other courts have exclusive original jurisdiction. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 212, § 4. Also, in cases at equity, which would include suits for an injunction: The supreme judicial and superior courts shall have original and concurrent jurisdiction of all cases and matters of equity cognizable under the general principles of equity jurisprudence and, with reference thereto, shall be courts of general equity jurisdiction, except that the superior court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all actions in which injunctive relief is sought in any matter involving or growing out of a labor dispute as defined in section twenty C of chapter one hundred and forty-nine. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, § 1. The Supreme Judicial Court is the state supreme court in the state. District Court The territorial jurisdiction of the Boston Municipal Court is a bit odd: The municipal courts in Boston shall have concurrent jurisdiction over all waters, islands and places not included in the district of any one of said courts or of the district court of Chelsea, and within the jurisdiction of the superior court for Suffolk county, except as provided in the preceding and following sections. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 218, § 2 The general civil jurisdiction of the Boston Municipal Court which is a form of District Court is as follows: Except as otherwise provided by law, the district court and Boston municipal court departments shall have original jurisdiction of civil actions for money damages. The actions may proceed in the courts only if there is no reasonable likelihood that recovery by the plaintiff will exceed $25,000, or an amount ordered from time to time by the supreme judicial court. Where multiple damages are allowed by law, the amount of single damages claimed shall control. Notwithstanding the limitation of $25,000, or other amount ordered by the supreme judicial court, the district courts may proceed with actions for money damages in any amount in summary process actions. The Boston municipal and district court departments shall have original jurisdiction concurrent with the probate and family court department of actions relative to paternity and support under chapter two hundred and nine C. The district courts shall also have jurisdiction of actions in summary process under chapter two hundred and thirty-nine and in the hearing and disposition of such actions shall have the same equitable powers and jurisdiction as is provided for the divisions of the housing court department pursuant to section three of chapter one hundred and eighty-five C. The Boston municipal and district court departments shall have original jurisdiction concurrent with the probate and family court department of proceedings under chapter two hundred and nine D. They shall have jurisdiction of proceedings transferred to them under the provisions of section four A of chapter two hundred and eleven. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 218, § 19. The equitable powers of the Boston Municipal Court are as follows: The district court and Boston municipal court departments of the trial court shall have the same equitable powers and jurisdiction as is provided for the superior court pursuant to chapter 214 and the same authority with regard to declaratory judgments as is provided for the superior court pursuant to chapter 231A for the purpose of the hearing and disposition of summary process actions and of civil actions for money damages under section 19 of this chapter. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction in rem and personam of all actions arising under sections one hundred and twenty-seven A to one hundred and twenty-seven K, inclusive, of chapter one hundred and eleven. The district courts shall have equity powers only to the extent necessary to enforce the aforementioned sections, including the power to appoint receivers, grant injunctions and issue restraining orders as justice and equity may require and for punishing civil contempt of orders, rulings and decrees made or pronounced in the exercise of this jurisdiction. Subject to the approval of the supreme judicial court, the chief justice for the district court department may from time to time promulgate rules and prescribe forms for the efficient operation of such equity sessions in the courts of the district court department; and in the Boston municipal court department the chief justice for said department may promulgate such rules and prescribe such forms. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 218, § 19C Section 127 basically involves supervisory authority over jails.
I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, I am unfamiliar with the jurisdiction I demand you give me your hat! You're not going to, are you? The point of that is that you are not obliged to do anything just because someone demands that you do. Now, if I had a court order that required you to give me your hat ... It appears that there is some confusion over who owns some land in Nebraska. This is a problem; it is not your problem. From my understanding which is entirely based on this: A warranty deed is a type of deed where the grantor (seller) guarantees that he or she holds clear title to a piece of real estate and has a right to sell it to the grantee (buyer). you would be extremely unwise to sign such a deed since it is in no way clear that you (or anyone) does have clear title. Now I take it that you are not interested in owning land in Nebraska and even less interested in getting into a legal battle over it. If that is the case then I suggest that you consult a local lawyer and ask for his advice on the following plan of action: You and your wife will renounce any claim that you may have if: You do not guarantee that you have any claim or title, The person to whom you are making this grant indemnifies you against any legal action that may result, They will prepare the documents, Your lawyer will review them, They will reimburse you for your lawyer's fees. Come back and tell us how this works out. Edit to address subsequent questions Can you be responsible for costs? Well, anything is possible but it would be extremely unlikely. If there was any wrongdoing it was many years ago by someone else! If you approach this in a reasonable way and attempt to assist in reaching a resolution (so long as it doesn't cost you time or money) then it is highly unlikely a court would award costs against you. What about background checks? This would be a civil case. It would not appear in your criminal history. While it is a matter of public record all it really means is that you and someone else had a dispute that required a court to settle; happens all the time.
united-states You may be confusing the right to an attorney if you cannot afford one that is applicable only in CRIMINAL cases, not civil cases like you are discussing. You may be able to get an attorney to take your case on a contingency basis but there are two things to keep in mind: The attorney has to have some expectation that the case is winnable. The amount to be recovered must be worth the risk of taking on this case. In other words, for the attorney it's more of a business question that a legal one. Many attorneys will give you a free 30 minute, more or less, consultation. Perhaps you might give that a try.
A promise that a court would not enforce by injunction can still be valid consideration and be part of a valid contract. Failure to carry out such obligations would lead to some measure of money damages, most likely. On the other hand, provisions specifically barred by law, or against public policy, such as a promise to commit a crime, are void from the start, and form no part of a valid contract. Such provisions may be treated by a court as if they had just been left out, or if they were essential to the contract, or formed the sole consideration, the whole contract might be considered void. If a term is too vague for a court to determine if it has been violated or not, the court may try to clarify it, or may just ignore it. Just what it would mean for a tenant to "undermine the leadership" of a landlord is not clear to me, at least. That might well be held to be "too vague". As to "not complain" it may be that a tenant has a legal right to make official complaints, which cannot be waived by contract. Or it may not, depending on the local laws.
In general you can dispute and negotiate any bill from a professional. The stronger your arguments for disputing it, and the more coherent your demands for adjustment, the more successful you will tend to be. This is like any business negotiation. One partner at a very large U.S. law firm once admitted to me that their corporate clients almost always ask for &ndash; and receive &ndash; billing adjustments. Of course, when push comes to shove, unless you're accusing the lawyer of fraudulent billing, then typically by contract you are liable for the bills. However, non-lawyers often assume that they will lose any dispute with their lawyers because it seems like lawyers have free access to the legal system. The reality is that there is a significant threshold that must be met before a law firm will sue a client for payment. That threshold will depend on the firm's opportunity costs, the costs of litigation, their assessment of reputational risks, how much they expect to actually collect, and sometimes just how ticked off they are.
It isn't that uncommon to do something similar to this, which is called a &quot;test case&quot;. One of the more familiar examples of this kind of litigation conduct is the case of Plessy v. Ferguson. There have been test cases, for example, that involved important questions of E.U. jurisdiction in civil law countries as well.
A civil case, however, is often decided by a &quot;bench&quot; (judge) trial. Under what circumstances is a civil case likely to go to a jury trial, and under what circumstances can a party either demand, or prevent a jury trial (aside from a contract where both parties waive their rights to a jury trial)? In federal court, there is a right to a jury trial in cases where the complaint is predominantly based on a &quot;legal&quot; as opposed to an &quot;equitable&quot; theory (roughly speaking claims for money damages v. claims for injunctive relief, but actually based upon historical practice in 18th century England with some select historical exceptions), if the plaintiff demands one with the filing of the Complaint and pays a jury fee, or if the defendant demands one with or shortly after filing an Answer and pays a jury fee, under the 7th Amendment to the United States Constitution and related civil procedure rules. Pre- and post-dispute contractual waivers of the right to a jury trial are allowed in most matters (although jury waivers are not allowed for a few kinds of statutory claims)1, and of course, one could also waive not just the right to a civil jury trial, but also a right to court system based dispute resolution with a valid arbitration clause. Many kinds of contracts like promissory notes and written leases, routinely include a jury trial waiver. Other kinds of contracts (e.g. cell phone contracts, bank customer agreements, and securities broker engagement agreements) routinely contain arbitration clauses. 1 The states of California and Georgia are exceptions to the general rule that contractual pre-dispute jury trial waivers are valid. A non-exclusive list of common cases where there is a right to a jury trial (in the absence of a contractual waiver of this right) include: Breach of contract Damages claims for breach of a lease Common law tort claims such as negligence, nuisance, defamation and fraud Civil rights and discrimination claims seeking money damages Patent and copyright infringement cases seeking money damages Non-preliminary claims to recover tangible personal property Will contests Termination of parental rights Eminent domain just compensation hearings The vast majority of personal injury claims are brought are common law negligence tort cases. A non-exclusive list of common cases where there is not a right to a jury trial include: Foreclosure of liens and mortgages Receiverships Core bankruptcy matters (but PI claims in bankruptcy get a jury trial) Dissolution of marriage, legal separation and annulments Child custody Adoption and paternity actions Change of name petitions Municipal or special district incorporation or annexation petitions Probate matters other than will contests (e.g. guardianship and custodianship and trust cases). Claims to reform written instruments Claims to invalidate contracts on equitable grounds (e.g. mistake) Fraudulent transfer lawsuits (even if for money damages) Disputes involving management of a corporation Suits seeking principally injunctive relief other than recovery of tangible personal property Quiet title cases involving real estate Preliminary relief in the nature of eviction, attachment, or preliminary recovery of tangible personal property pending a determination on the merits Juvenile delinquency cases Hearings on the right to bring an eminent domain proceeding Court of claims suits for money damages against a governmental entity Suits seeking to declare a statute unconstitutional or invalid Actions to invoke, assist, or enforce an arbitration clause Election law disputes not predominantly seeking money damages Partition cases (to divide or sell co-owned real estate) Cases seeking an accounting (e.g. between partners in a partnership) Tax refund lawsuits (Phillips v. Commissioner , 283 U.S. 589 (1931); Franchise Tax Bd. v. Superior Court, 2011 WL 2177248 (Cal., June 6, 2011)). The nature of counterclaims asserted is irrelevant to the jury trial right in federal court. But, in federal court, the case can be dismissed pursuant to a FRCP 12 motion to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings (basically for jurisdictional reasons or for failure to state a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted), or can be resolved because all of the claims that give rise to the jury trial can be resolved as a matter of law based upon undisputed facts stated in affidavits under FRCP 56 (motion for summary judgment), or can be dismissed as a discovery sanction pursuant to FRCP 37, or can be dismissed due to a settlement reached by the parties pursuant to FRCP 41, or can be dismissed for failure to prosecute. If a jury is properly demanded and is not dismissed before trial, then the case will proceed to a trial by jury, but the jury will decide only &quot;legal&quot; claims in the case while the judge will decide any &quot;equitable&quot; claims in the case, when there is a jury trial. In most U.S. states and territories (other than Louisiana, Commonwealth court cases Puerto Rico and territorial court cases in American Samoa) which have civil legal systems based upon the French, Spanish and German legal systems respectively), the right to a civil jury trial is essentially the same, but arises under a state constitution, a state law, or a state court rule, since the 7th Amendment does not apply to state court proceedings. But, jury trials are often prohibited is small claims court cases. In actual practice, civil jury trials are quite rare (and have grown much more rare in both state and federal court over the last several decades). About 75% of civil jury trials involve personal injury tort causes, civil rights cases, or fraud. There is a right to a jury trial in contract cases (although many contracts contain pre-dispute waivers of the right to a jury trial), but it is much less common for either party to demand a jury trial in a breach of contract case that does not involve fraud than it is in tort or civil rights cases are involved. A jury is demanded is almost every case in which part of the damages sought include non-economic damages (e.g. pain and suffering, or emotional distress), or exemplary damages (i.e. punitive damages) are sought. For example, here is a breakdown of bench and jury trials held in 2005 in Colorado in state and federal court combined based upon their respective annual reports (which is fairly typical although jury trials were slightly less common across the board in 2016): Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Cases Infraction Final Hearings 8764 Traffic Trial To Court 187 (33%) Misdemeanor Trial To Court 298 (31%) Juvenile Trial To Court 281 (Delinquency and Parental Rights Terminations) (89%) District Court Criminal Trial To Court 28 (Mostly Felonies) (3%) Federal District Court Criminal Trial To Court 15* (41%) Subtotal: 809 (excludes infractions) (29%) Traffic Jury Trial 386 Misdemeanor Jury Trial 651 Juvenile Jury Trial 35 (Parental Rights Terminations) District Court Criminal Jury Trial 857 (Mostly Felonies) Federal District Court Criminal Jury Trial 22 Subtotal: 1,951 Criminal and quasi-criminal jury trials make up about 85% of all jury trials in Colorado. Civil Cases Civil Cases Small Claims Trial To Court 3,485 (100%) County Court Civil Trial To Court 1,236 (99%) District Court Civil Trial To Court 280 (50%) Evidentiary Federal Magistrate Civil Hearings 9 (100%) Evidentiary Federal Magistrate Prisoner's Case Hearings 7 (100%) Federal District Court Civil Trial To Court 36* (46%) Subtotal: 5,053 (94%) County Court Civil Jury Trial 17 District Court Civil Jury Trial 277 Federal District Court Civil Jury Trial 43 Subtotal: 337 Civil jury trials make up about 15% of all jury trials in Colorado In national statistics, about three-quarters of general jurisdiction state trial court jury trials are in personal injury cases. The available data makes it impossible to determine if this is true in Colorado, although there is no reason to think that Colorado is atypical in this regard. If Colorado is typical, about 95% of jury trials in Colorado are for criminal, quasi-criminal or personal injury cases, while all other cases account for about 5% of jury trials. Excludes 30 pre-trial evidentiary hearings and 7 evidentiary sentencing hearings. ** Excludes 36 evidentiary hearings in preliminary matters and motions, etc. In Colorado, small claims cases are up to $7,500 and county court has a $15,000 jurisdictional threshold. There is no dollar limit on federal question cases in federal court but diversity cases in federal court must have $75,000 or more in controversy. As the statistics above illustrate, a significant minority of criminal cases are tried in bench trials. About 3% of state felony trials are bench trials (the federal court data includes both bench trials in federal misdemeanor cases and bench trials in federal felony trials). About 30% of misdemeanor trials are bench trials rather than jury trials. More than 95% of civil cases in both state and federal courts, and more than 95% federal criminal cases are resolved by default, dismissal on motion, voluntary dismissal, or settlement before trial. About 80%-90% of state criminal cases are plea bargained and therefore do not go to trial. Federal civil cases are proportionately more likely to go to a jury trial than state general jurisdiction court civil cases.
Any court from a municipal traffic court on up can declare a law unconstitutional and the U.S. Supreme Court is almost never the court that does so in the first instance. Also, while the jurisdiction stripping law that you suggest might be unconstitutional, it is not obviously unconstitutional. The relevant language is in Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution (this has been modified by the 11th Amendment in ways that are not pertinent to the issue at hand): The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-- to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The key language being the language in bold, who scope and limitations are the subject of hot debate in legal scholarship. For example, both military tribunal law for non-soldiers and the collateral review of death sentences implicate this provision. An issue related to U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction over military court-martial court composition will be heard this year in oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court. There is also debate over whether the jurisdiction of every single federal court can be removed from a matter within the judicial power of the United States. In that regard, keep in mind that the United States federal court system did not have direct appeals of criminal convictions at all until the 1890s, although you could challenge, for example, the jurisdiction of a criminal court over your case with a writ of habeas corpus which is a collateral attack on a conviction in a separate civil lawsuit formally directed at your prison warden. That being said, as far as I know, a law is considered in effect until declared unconstitutional. It is illegal to break an unconstitutional law, until declared so. You are wrong. A law that is unconstitutional on its face is, in terms of legal theory, unconstitutional immediately upon enactment and a court simply acknowledges that fact. It is not illegal to break an unconstitutional law even if no court has yet declared it to be unconstitutional (in U.S. jurisprudence). A law that is unconstitutional as applied is unconstitutional in application at the moment it is applied unconstitutionally, and again, a court merely acknowledges that fact.