decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
venue | 219 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
venue
Authored by: IANALitj on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 11:30 AM EST
The technical term for deciding which court gets a case is venue. This is
intertwined with another technical term, jurisdiction (which leads to
complications, since jurisdiction is much more important than venue, and covers
several quite different subjects).

The short answer to your question is the very unsatisfying "this is the way
it is." The system has grown up over the course of hundreds of years, and
it works pretty well most of the time.

The longer answer is that the general venue principles do make sense. One is
that if a court has jurisdiction, venue is generally proper where the plaintiff
lives. This makes sense, since that is usually -- not always, but almost always
-- going to be the most convenient venue for the plaintiff.

Another general principle is that the plaintiff gets to make the first choice of
venue if there are several possible places. This not only makes sense but is as
a practical matter a virtual necessity. The plaintiff brings the action to
some court in the first place, and prepares the first paperwork. That paperwork
has to be filed somewhere, and that filing place obviously becomes the original
venue.

These two general rules do make it generally true that the plaintiff will be in
a court that is near its home.

Whether the plaintiff has a home court advantage can be another question. There
is a story (for which I cannot vouch, but it is a good story) that James
Fenimore Cooper and the famous New York editor Horace Greeley were disputing --
and abusing -- each other in print, and a friend asked Greeley if he was afraid
of being sued by Cooper for libel. Greeley is said to have replied that he was
not worried: "He cannot bring it to trial in New York [City], for we are
known here; nor in Otsego, for he is known there."

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • venue - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 11:43 AM EST
    • venue - Authored by: ukjaybrat on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 11:58 AM EST
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )