So a special appearance is a thing. Normally, if you appear in a case, you are consenting to the courts personal and subject matter jurisdiction. But what if you believe the Court lacks jurisdiction and you want to point that out and make arguments on it instead of blowing off the court date and being defaulted? That’s a special appearance.
Nornally it’s used for personal jurisdiction issues, because subject matter jurisdiction usually isn’t in dispute. Personal jurisdiction an be waived, but subject matter jurisdiction not only cannot be waived, it can be challenged any time and the court itself has a continuing duty to make sure its subject matter jurisdiction is not lost such as by dismissals or withdrawals of certain parts of the action.
In this case though, the statute charged was a criminal statute and they were in criminal court. There very clearly is subject matter jurisdiction.
Personal jurisdiction is when someone has enough contacts with a state to make having the lawsuit in that state fair. So you can be sued for causing a traffic accident in a state while only traveling through a state. But you shouldn’t be sued in a state that you have never visited and the conduct at the heart of the lawsuit is unrelated to your conduct in the state. Example: someone tries to sue you for defamation in Oklahoma (because that’s where they live) for a comment you posted on Lemmy. Unless you live, work, or have property in Oklahoma, it wouldn’t be fair to make you travel all the way to Oklahoma to defend a lawsuit.
So a special appearance is a thing. Normally, if you appear in a case, you are consenting to the courts personal and subject matter jurisdiction. But what if you believe the Court lacks jurisdiction and you want to point that out and make arguments on it instead of blowing off the court date and being defaulted? That’s a special appearance.
Nornally it’s used for personal jurisdiction issues, because subject matter jurisdiction usually isn’t in dispute. Personal jurisdiction an be waived, but subject matter jurisdiction not only cannot be waived, it can be challenged any time and the court itself has a continuing duty to make sure its subject matter jurisdiction is not lost such as by dismissals or withdrawals of certain parts of the action.
In this case though, the statute charged was a criminal statute and they were in criminal court. There very clearly is subject matter jurisdiction.
Here’s the magical part.
It takes much more effort to correct bullshit than it does to make it up, unfortunately.
I do appreciate your explanation though.
What would be an example of a special case where the court lacks personal jurisdiction?
Personal jurisdiction is when someone has enough contacts with a state to make having the lawsuit in that state fair. So you can be sued for causing a traffic accident in a state while only traveling through a state. But you shouldn’t be sued in a state that you have never visited and the conduct at the heart of the lawsuit is unrelated to your conduct in the state. Example: someone tries to sue you for defamation in Oklahoma (because that’s where they live) for a comment you posted on Lemmy. Unless you live, work, or have property in Oklahoma, it wouldn’t be fair to make you travel all the way to Oklahoma to defend a lawsuit.
Thank you for the detailed explanation, that makes sense!