Is the ruling of subject matter jurisdiction just about whether a particular court has jurisdiction over a case and not the actual case itself? In other words, I was expecting eg the railroad v Mottley case to be about the actual breach of contract and the tickets but the actual question of the case was: Is the anticipated defense contained in the plaintiff’s complaint enough to establish subject matter jurisdiction in federal court? No
The question of jurisdiction is independent of the underlying issue. According to the well-pleaded complaint rule, the complaint itself must establish the federal question; anticipated defenses don't help establish federal question jurisdiction.
This video REALLY helped me with my project about the federal question jurisdiction! Thank you!! ❤️
Glad it helped!
these videos are really helpful for studying for my MLS degree. Thanks for making them.
Thank you.
Is the ruling of subject matter jurisdiction just about whether a particular court has jurisdiction over a case and not the actual case itself?
In other words, I was expecting eg the railroad v Mottley case to be about the actual breach of contract and the tickets but the actual question of the case was: Is the anticipated defense contained in the plaintiff’s complaint enough to establish subject matter jurisdiction in federal court? No
The question of jurisdiction is independent of the underlying issue. According to the well-pleaded complaint rule, the complaint itself must establish the federal question; anticipated defenses don't help establish federal question jurisdiction.