Civil: A body of rules that delineate private rights and remedies,

and govern disputes between individuals in such areas as

contracts, property, and Family Law; distinct from criminal or
public law. Civil law systems, which trace their roots to ancient
Rome, are governed by doctrines developed and compiled by
legal scholars. Legislators and administrators in civil law
countries use these doctrines to fashion a code by which all
legal controversies are decided.
Criminal: action taken in a court to bring a criminal prosecution
against someone
Special Special proceedings are used in hearing cases in which,
unlike suits and cases arising from administrative law
relationships, there is no dispute as to a legal right. Examples
include cases to establish facts that are legally important, to
declare a citizen missing or dead, to declare a citizen of limited
capacity or incapable, to declare property ownerless, and to
establish that information in the registers of civil status is
incorrect. Special proceedings are also used in cases involving
complaints against the actions of notaries and agencies
performing notary functions and in cases to restore rights under
lost bearer documents. The court hears cases of special
proceedings on the application of interested persons or
organizations. If a dispute as to a legal right arises while the
case is being heard by the procedure of special proceedings, the
court leaves the application unheard, and the interested parties
may initiate a suit in court according to the general rules.
Personal jurisdiction:
Personal jurisdiction gives a court the authority to determine the
rights and liabilities of a person or entity, such as a corporation
or partnership, involved in a lawsuit.
Substantive due process:
Substantive due process is the Constitutional doctrine that
provides, among other things, that a court may not assert
jurisdiction over a party who has insufficient contacts with the
state in which the court sits. (The "Substantive due process"

doctrine stands for much more than this; but this is the part that
is relevant to our chapter.)
Procedural due process:
Procedural due process requires that the defendant receive
adequate notice of the pending action and an opportunity to be
heard in a proceeding that affects his or her interests.
Domicile:
A person is domiciled in the state in which he has his current
dwelling place and in which he intends to reside indefinitely.
As explained in the previous subchapter, personal jurisdiction is
jurisdiction over the persons or entities involved in the lawsuit.
One way to think about personal jurisdiction is to ask the
following question: What right does a court have to determine
the rights of the parties involved in the action? In other words,
the question of whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a
person involves the question as to whether it would be fair for
the court to issue a judgment against that person.
There are two elements that must be satisfied for a court to
have personal jurisdiction:
1) The law that governs the court must give it authority to
assert jurisdiction over the parties to the case; and
2) The jurisdiction, even where allowed by the law governing
the court, must not violate the "due process" clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Due process is divided into two categories: substantive due
process and procedural due process. "Substantive due process",
in our context, can be explained as a limitation on the power of
the court to act and exercise power over property or a person or
entity. The "substantive due process" inquiry involves an
examination of the contacts between the state in which the
court has jurisdiction and the defendant or property. "Procedural
due process" requires that the defendant receive adequate
notice of the pending action and an opportunity to be heard.

Both substantive due process and procedural due process are

imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The essence of substantive due process is that it must not
be fundamentally unfair for the court to exercise personal
jurisdiction over the defendant. It must be fair that the
defendant be hailed into the jurisdiction in which the court sits
and will determine the defendants rights and responsibilities.
For example:

Subject matter :
Subject matter jurisdiction:
Subject matter jurisdiction means that the court has the
authority to hear the type of case or controversy initiated in its
court.
Federal question jurisdiction:
Federal courts have original subject matter jurisdiction over
cases involving a question or issue of federal law.

Aggregation:
The amount in controversy must be above $75,000 for diversity
jurisdiction to apply. Aggregation allows jurisdiction where a
plaintiff has brought multiple causes of action, which
individually seek damages below $75,000, but can be combined
so that the total amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000
required.
Substantive Law Explained
Substantive law consists of written statutory rules passed by
legislature that govern how people behave. These rules, or laws,
define crimes and set forth punishment. They also define our
rights and responsibilities as citizens. There are elements of
substantive law in both criminal and civil law.
Civil law differs from criminal law in that it applies to
interactions between citizens. Rather than dealing with crime,
civil law deals with tort, or actions that aren't necessarily illegal
but can be proven to be damaging in some way. For example, if
you sue a neighbor for cutting down a tree and letting it land on
your house, that would be a civil case dealing with tort rather
than a criminal case dealing with crime.

Diversity jurisdiction:
Federal courts have original subject matter jurisdiction over
cases in which the parties have diverse citizenships (i.e., no
plaintiff and defendant are citizens of the same state) and in
which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Substantive law is used to determine whether a crime or tort

has been committed, define what charges may apply and decide
whether the evidence supports the charges. Let's say a person
is caught drunk driving. Substantive law says that it is a crime
punishable by a term in prison.

Citizenship:
For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a persons citizenship is
determined by the persons domicile, not by the persons
residence.

The substance of charges, or elements of a crime or tort, must

be carefully evaluated to determine whether a crime or tort
really exists. In other words, specific facts need to be proven
true in order to convict somebody of a crime or a tort.

Domicile:
A person is domiciled in the state in which he has his current
dwelling place in which he intends to be domiciled indefinitely.

In the case of a person caught driving while intoxicated, a few

things would have to be proven:
The person was driving the vehicle

The person acted in ways that gave the police a reason to

believe he or she was intoxicated
The person was over the legal limit per a field sobriety and/or
Breathalyzer test

Due Process
Requires that the person must be aware of all charges
within 72 his or her arrest
Comparison chart

Once these things are proven, the person can be taken into
custody. Next, procedural law will determine the steps the case
must take.

Procedural
Law

Substantive Law

Definiti
on

Deals with and

lays down the
ways and
means by
which
substantive
law can be
enforced

Deals with those areas of law which

establish the rights and obligations
of individuals , what individuals
may or may not do

Powers

No
independent
powers

Independent powers to decide the

fate of a case

Applicat
ion

Can be applied
in non legal
contexts

Cannot be applied in non legal

contexts

Regulati
on

By statutory
law

By Act of Parliament or goverment

implemation

Procedural Law Explained

Procedural law governs the mechanics of how a legal case flows,
including steps to process a case. Procedural law adheres to due
process, which is a right granted to U.S. citizens by the 14th
Amendment.

Due process refers to the legal rights owed to a person in

criminal and civil actions. It is one of our 14th Amendment
rights and guarantees the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.

In the case of an arrest, the 14th Amendment applies to the

degree that one can be charged with a crime but still has rights
to a speedy, fair and impartial trial. Charges must be filed with
the court within a specific time frame. The exact amount of time
varies by jurisdiction, but 72 hours is usually the maximum time
a citizen can be held without being formally chared with a crim.
Example drunk driving case
Substantive law
That the person was drunk while driving a vehicle Police
were within their rights to make the arrest

Cause of action:
The fact or combination of facts that gives a person the right to
seek judicial redress or relief against another. Also, the legalthe
ory forming the basis of a lawsuit.

The cause of action is the heart of the complaint, which is the Pl

eading that initiates a lawsuit. Without an adequately statedca
use of action the plaintiff's case can be dismissed at the outset.
It is not sufficient merely to state that certain eventsoccurred th
at entitle the plaintiff to relief. All the elements of each cause of
action must be detailed in the complaint. Theclaims must be su
pported by the facts, the law, and a conclusion that flows from t
he application of the law to those facts.
Splitting of cause of action:
What is SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION?
Dividing a single cause of action, claim, or demand into two or
more parts, and bringing suit for one of such parts only,
intending to reserve the rest for a separate action. The plaintiff
who does this is bound by his first judgment, and can recover no
more.

Joinder misjoinder
The question of joinder of parties may arise either as regards
the plaintiffs or as regards the defendants. An Act may be done
by a single individual and may adversely affect another
individual. In that case, the question of joinder of parties does
not arise at all. The question of joinder of parties arises only
when an Act is done by two or more persons or it affects to two
or more persons. [1] All persons may be joined in one suit as
plaintiffs according the conditions required under rule 1 of order
1. The conditions which are required to be fulfilled are that the
right to relief alleged to exist in each plaintiff arises out of the
same act of transaction; and the case is such of a character
that, if such person brought separate suits, any common
question of law or fact would arise. On the other hand, a person
can be joined as a defendant according to the provisions of rule
3 of order 1. The conditions to be required to be satisfied in the

case of defendant are that the right to relief alleged to exist

against them arises out of the same act of transaction; and the
case is of such a character that, if separate suits were brought
against such person, any common question of law or fact would
arise.
no suit shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder
of parties. In such cases, the court may deal with the matter in
controversy as regards the rights and interests of the parties
avtually before it. However, this rule does not apply to cases
where there is a non-joinder of necessary party.
If two or more persons are joined as plaintiffs or defendants in
one suit in contravention of order 1, Rules 1 and 3 respectively
and they are neither necessary nor proper parties, it is a case of
misjoinder of parties. On the other hand, where a person, who is
necessary or proper party to a suit has not been joined as a
party to the suit, it is a case of non-joinder. The general rule is
that a suit cannot be dismissed only on the ground of nonjoinder or misjoinder of parties.
There would be misjoinder of parties if person having a separate
cause of action file a suit jointly. [4] It would not be in a case
where a plaintiff files a suit against more than one person and a
common question of law or fact would arise if separate suits
were filed. [5] Where in a suit there are two or more defendants
and two or more cause of action, the suit will be bad for
misjoinder of of defendants and cause of action, if different
cause of action are joined against different defendants
separately. Such a misjoinder is technically called
multifariousness. [6]
As regards the non-joinder of parties, a distinction has been
drawn between the non-joinder who ought to have been joined
as a party and the non-joinder of a person whose joinder is only
a matter of convenience or expediency. The court in various
cases held that if the decree cannot be effective without the

absent parties, the suit is liable to be dismissed. [7] In a

particular case, where one of the mortgagees instituted the suit
on the mortgagee, it was held that this rule did not cure the
defect, as the matter was not a matter of procedure. Thus, suit
was held to be not maintainable on the ground that an effective
decree giving discharge to the mortgagors could not be passed
by reason of the non-joinder of some of the mortgagees. [8] In
cases where the joinder of a person as a party is only a matter
of convenience the absent party may be added or the suit may
be tried without him. [9] The scope of this rule was elaborately
discussed by Allahbad High Court in Maqsood Ali v. Zahid
Ali [10] that except where there is a legal bar to the
maintainability of a suit by reason, non-joinder of a party, or
where in his absence, the decree that may be passed might
become infructuous or inexecutable, the court cannot dismiss a
suit for non-joinder of a person. When the question is such that
it can be decided between the parties to the suit, the court

cannot decline to do so because the third parties might be

interested thereon. The plea of non-joinder must be raised at
the earliest opportunity and if the objection as to non-joinder as
is not raised at an early stage, it is deemed to have been
waived.
Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that no
decree shall be reversed or substantially valid, nor shall any
case be remanded, in appeal on account of any misjoinder or
non-joinder of parties or causes of action or any error, defect or
irregularity in any proceedings in the suit, not affecting the
merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court and, however,
nothing in this section shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary
party. Where a relief is sought against a party without
impleading him as a party, the suit would be liable to be
dismissed.