Personal jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear and preside over a certain party or parties sued in a case (Parrish, 2020) . The basis for personal jurisdiction is evaluating whether the court in a state has an interest in the defendant. It is allowed if the defendant has continuous activities in the state in question; the actions under which he/she is charged must be related to his/her activities. However, a court may preside over the case for a defender with substantial activities in a certain state if the jurisdiction is reasonable, although the activities may be unrelated to the cause. For example, a business may be sued for a different reason besides its official business when there is reasonable jurisdiction by the state.
Subject matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear and rule certain claims, such as medical malpractice (Davidson, 2017) . At the state level, court systems have boundaries on subject matters. For example, one court may specialize in juvenile law while another may specialize in medical malpractice. When involving individuals from different states, a plaintiff may sue at the state or federal court. For the federal court, the damage must be equal to or more than $75,000. When not sued to the federal court, the case could be charged at the state where the plaintiff or defendant resides.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Stare decisis is a doctrine containing anterior cases and how they were resolved at the time. In reference to this doctrine, when a similar case is presented, it promotes a steady continuity of ways of ruling and increased accurate forecasting, therefore no litigation of new laws. Stare decisis governs both horizontally in the sense that a court is bound to its precedent, and vertically, adherence to the precedent of a higher court. The case must be explored explicitly for the stare decisis to be overruled. In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment, where data mining for prescribers was protected and freedom of speech being interpreted as having the information needed to speak out one’s mind (ANA, 2017) . Using identifiable patient data would hel p the pharmaceutical companies to establish prescription for the recipients.
I disagree with the ruling. The collection of patient identifiable data is a violation of patients’ privacy . Privacy is vital and should be held with high regard. Patient information should not be taken and used to profit a few companies. If patient identifiable data is to be sold, the owner must provide consent.
References
ANA. (2017, August 17). Marketing Community Wins Majority Victory in U.S Supreme Court Decision . Retrieved from Leadership in Challenging Times: www.ana.net/content/show/id/2164
Davidson, G. A. (2017). SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION UNDER THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT: THE MYSTERIES SOLVED. Dispute Resolution Journal, 72 (2), 1-18.
Parrish, A. (2020). Personal Jurisdiction: The Transnational Difference. Virginia Journal of International Law, 60 (1), 97-145. Retrieved from https://web-b-ebscohost-com.libdatab.strayer.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=5&sid=1e6273d0-b1e6-4d81-84e5-ad1b10e9a007%40sessionmgr103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=141797882&db=a9h
