\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

bar bros - q re family law and jdx

am i right to say that state courts only require personal ju...
Buff French Chef
  07/22/14
The need smj too right? And they only have smj if the party ...
irradiated shimmering sandwich giraffe
  07/23/14
that's right. ty my brother. that's the ex parte divorce doc...
Buff French Chef
  07/23/14
Good luck we got this
irradiated shimmering sandwich giraffe
  07/23/14
i think that is a cr way of looking at it. family law issues...
navy juggernaut knife
  07/23/14
im a dumb man. i didnt realize that the 90 day residency rqr...
Buff French Chef
  07/23/14
i thought the child custody rule was essentially where ever ...
navy juggernaut knife
  07/23/14
Cr
irradiated shimmering sandwich giraffe
  07/23/14
you are right my brother. it's 6 months or since birth, if c...
Buff French Chef
  07/23/14
Correct.
passionate garnet menage
  07/23/14
lol no bankruptcy federal antitrust federal securities ...
Ultramarine roast beef state
  07/23/14
right. i was more concerned with the family law matter. ...
Buff French Chef
  07/23/14


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: July 22nd, 2014 11:51 PM
Author: Buff French Chef

am i right to say that state courts only require personal jurisdiction?

im on DAT THEMIS and the outlines are dogshit on this point. i seem to recall in the federal jurisdiction lecture the lecturer mentioning that state courts are courts of general jurisdiction and can hear any claim as long as there's personal jurisdiction.

is this right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2625719&forum_id=2#25984969)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 23rd, 2014 1:26 AM
Author: irradiated shimmering sandwich giraffe

The need smj too right? And they only have smj if the party bringing the suit to their court is domiciled in that courts state. Even so, they can only render a divorce decree with smj, which will be given full faith and credit in other states, but they need pj to settle property matters

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2625719&forum_id=2#25985371)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 23rd, 2014 1:33 AM
Author: Buff French Chef

that's right. ty my brother. that's the ex parte divorce doctrine. much appreciated.

im in a state w/90 day residency rqrmt. i imagine there's in rem for if the marriage occurred there, but DAT THEMIS doesn't even cover it.

~_~

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2625719&forum_id=2#25985416)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 23rd, 2014 1:36 AM
Author: irradiated shimmering sandwich giraffe

Good luck we got this

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2625719&forum_id=2#25985429)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 23rd, 2014 1:20 AM
Author: navy juggernaut knife

i think that is a cr way of looking at it. family law issues are always state law issues so if there is PJ, then they should be able to entertain it.

i dont think you will ever be faced with a Q that deals with whether the court has smj over a divorce, custody, cp/sp, etc. it will probably be focused more on the pj aspect like if the P has lived in the state long enough to file for divorce in it, whether the property is is in the forum, where the child lives, etc

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2625719&forum_id=2#25985352)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 23rd, 2014 1:29 AM
Author: Buff French Chef

im a dumb man. i didnt realize that the 90 day residency rqrmt was the general basis for smj to grant a divorce. i didnt piece together that that would also apply to distribution, custody, alimony, etc until just this second.

the reason i was confused about the whole thing is bc the uniform child custody jurisdiction and enforcement act has complex rules regarding smj for granting/modifying child custody.

ty for makign me think this through.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2625719&forum_id=2#25985386)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 23rd, 2014 1:31 AM
Author: navy juggernaut knife

i thought the child custody rule was essentially where ever the kid had lived for the 6 months prior to the filing and that court had exclusive jurisdiction over it?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2625719&forum_id=2#25985395)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 23rd, 2014 1:31 AM
Author: irradiated shimmering sandwich giraffe

Cr

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2625719&forum_id=2#25985398)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 23rd, 2014 1:35 AM
Author: Buff French Chef

you are right my brother. it's 6 months or since birth, if child not 6 months old. the state that grants has continuing jdx until parents no longer live in state or child no longer [significantly connected to state].

then you have to go to the other weird jdx provisions (default; significant connection)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2625719&forum_id=2#25985424)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 23rd, 2014 1:24 AM
Author: passionate garnet menage

Correct.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2625719&forum_id=2#25985368)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 23rd, 2014 1:28 AM
Author: Ultramarine roast beef state

lol no

bankruptcy

federal antitrust

federal securities

admiralty

patent/copyright

treason

ambassadors

state vs state

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2625719&forum_id=2#25985382)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 23rd, 2014 1:31 AM
Author: Buff French Chef

right.

i was more concerned with the family law matter.

confusing post i guess.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2625719&forum_id=2#25985394)