Jurisdiction and Venue

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The court’s authority to hear a particular category of case. A court that lacks it cannot decide the dispute at all, and the parties cannot waive the requirement or agree to give a court power it does not have. Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction granted by Congress and the Constitution, while state courts like Florida’s are courts of general jurisdiction that can hear most kinds of cases.

Federal Question Jurisdiction

Federal court authority over claims that arise under the U.S. Constitution, a federal statute, or a treaty, granted by 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The federal issue generally has to appear in the plaintiff’s own claim, not merely as a defense the defendant might raise. There is no minimum dollar amount for a federal question case.

Diversity Jurisdiction

Federal court authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 over disputes between citizens of different states (or between a state citizen and a foreign party) when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. It requires complete diversity, meaning no plaintiff shares a home state with any defendant. Congress created it so that an out-of-state party would not have to fear bias in a local state court.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court’s power over the parties themselves, so that its judgment actually binds the defendant. It comes in two forms: general jurisdiction, where the defendant is so connected to the forum (the state where suit is brought) that it is essentially at home there, and specific jurisdiction, where the claim arises from or relates to the defendant’s own contacts with that state. Unlike subject matter jurisdiction, a defendant can consent to personal jurisdiction or waive an objection to it.

Minimum Contacts

The constitutional due process standard from International Shoe Co. v. Washington: a court may reach an out-of-state defendant only if that defendant has enough connection to the forum that being sued there does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Courts ask whether the defendant purposefully availed itself of the forum, meaning it deliberately reached into the state to do business rather than being pulled in by someone else’s unilateral act.

Florida’s Long-Arm Statute

Section 48.193, Florida Statutes, which lists specific acts, such as operating a business, committing a tort in Florida (a civil wrong like an injury caused by a defective product), breaching a contract to be performed there, or owning property in the state, that subject a nonresident to suit in Florida. Florida courts apply a two-step test from Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais: the statute must authorize jurisdiction on the facts, and the exercise must independently satisfy federal due process. A federal court sitting in Florida borrows this same statute, so on personal jurisdiction the two systems largely track each other.

Venue

The proper geographic location for the trial, set by statute, once a court with jurisdiction has been identified. Venue answers the question of which courthouse, not which court has power, so a court can have jurisdiction over a case and still be an improper place to try it. As with personal jurisdiction, an objection to venue can be waived if the defendant does not raise it in time.

Florida’s Two-Tier Trial Courts

Florida splits its trial courts into circuit courts and county courts, and for most civil cases the dividing line is the amount in controversy. County courts handle smaller money disputes up to a statutory ceiling, while circuit courts handle larger money cases plus categories like family law and probate. Because that dollar ceiling is set by statute and has been raised over time, you check the current version of Section 34.01 rather than trusting an older figure.

Part 1: Read the Governing Law Yourself

Before you open an AI model, read the primary sources so you can catch errors later. On Cornell LII, read 28 U.S.C. § 1331, § 1332, and § 1391, and note what each one actually requires. On Online Sunshine, pull up Florida Statutes § 48.193, § 34.01, and Chapter 47, and read the text rather than a summary of it. Pay attention to the county court limit in § 34.01: the statute shows the figure rising in steps over the years, which is the reason you always check the live version instead of a number from an old outline. If any statute reads as dense or circular, run the Statute Decoder prompt to restate it in plain language, but do that only after you have read the words yourself.

Part 2: Work Out Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Both Systems

Start with the federal system: could Maria’s case be filed in federal court? Apply § 1332 to decide whether there is complete diversity between Maria and BrewMax and whether her claim, combining the property loss and her personal-injury damages, plausibly exceeds $75,000. Check whether any federal question exists, or whether this is purely a state-law claim. Then turn to the state system and use the current § 34.01 to decide whether the case belongs in a Florida county court or circuit court, given the amount at stake. Because the case may qualify for both systems, note that Maria has a real choice to make. Use the Comparison Builder prompt to draft this part as a two-column federal-versus-Florida analysis, then confirm every statute it cites against Cornell LII and Online Sunshine.

Part 3: Test Personal Jurisdiction with a Real Case

Open Ford Motor Co. v. Montana on the Supreme Court’s site and read the syllabus and the core of Justice Kagan’s opinion, which holds that when a company serves a market for a product in a state and that product injures a resident there, the state’s courts may hear the resulting suit even if that specific unit was first sold elsewhere. Apply that to BrewMax: does § 48.193 authorize jurisdiction on these facts, given that BrewMax sold into Florida and a technician installed the machine in Orlando, and does due process allow it under Ford’s reasoning about purposeful availment and claims that relate to a defendant’s contacts? Note that a federal court sitting in Florida would run the same long-arm and due-process analysis, so here the two systems reach the same place. Once you have written your own conclusion, run the Argument Stress-Tester prompt to have the AI argue the opposite side, and look up any case it cites, such as Bristol-Myers Squibb or Venetian Salami, on Google Scholar to confirm the case is real and says what the AI claims.

Part 4: Pin Down Venue and the Actual Court

Now that you know which courts have power, find the right place to file in each system. For federal venue, apply § 1391(b) to the BrewMax facts, then use § 89 to confirm which federal judicial district contains Orange County, where Orlando sits. For Florida venue, apply Chapter 47 to decide the proper county, then use the Florida Courts structure page to identify which of the 20 judicial circuits that county belongs to and confirm, from your Part 2 answer, whether the case goes to circuit or county court. Finish by locating the real filing points: on the PACER site, find the entry for the correct Florida federal district and its divisions, and on the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, find where a filer selects the right county. You are not filing anything; you are pinning down exactly where Maria’s complaint would go in each system.

Part 5: Build the Side-by-Side and Verify It

Assemble your work into one comparison a lawyer could actually use: for the BrewMax case, lay the federal path next to the Florida path across subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue, with the governing authority named for each entry. Then make a verification pass. For every statute, rule, case, and dollar figure the AI gave you anywhere in the conversation, confirm it against the primary source and fix anything that is wrong. Run the Citation Auditor prompt to surface every authority the AI relied on, then check each one yourself. Your product is the completed side-by-side plus a short note listing anything the AI got wrong and how you caught it.

Part 6: Share Chat Link

Include one AI chat link with a 1–2 sentence explanation of what the conversation shows and why you chose to share it.

Statute Decoder

You are helping me read primary legal text accurately. I am going to paste the text of a statute, for example 28 U.S.C. § 1332 or Florida Statutes § 34.01. Restate what it requires in plain language, one requirement at a time, and point to the exact words that support each part of your restatement. Do not add rules from memory or from other statutes. If any part of the text is ambiguous or you are unsure what it means, say so instead of guessing.

This prompt grounds the model in the text you supply and forbids outside additions, which keeps it from blending in a half-remembered version of the rule. Asking it to quote the supporting words and flag ambiguity turns a summary into something you can check line by line.

Comparison Builder

Act as a litigation associate mapping where a case can be filed. Here are the facts: [paste the BrewMax facts]. Build a two-column comparison, one column for federal court and one for Florida state court, addressing subject matter jurisdiction only. For the federal column, analyze diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, covering both complete diversity and the amount in controversy, and note whether any federal question exists. For the Florida column, analyze whether the case belongs in county or circuit court under the current version of Florida Statutes § 34.01. Cite the specific statute for every conclusion, and mark any point where you are relying on an assumption about the facts.

Role assignment plus a fixed two-column structure forces the model to treat the federal and Florida questions as parallel rather than answering whichever is easier. Requiring a citation in every cell gives you a ready-made checklist of things to verify against the code.

Argument Stress-Tester

I have concluded that a Florida court has personal jurisdiction over BrewMax, a Georgia company, under Florida Statutes § 48.193 and the due process standard applied in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana. Here is my reasoning: [paste your reasoning]. Do not tell me whether I am right. Instead, argue the strongest case that the Florida court lacks personal jurisdiction over BrewMax, then ask me three questions about the facts or the law that my reasoning has not yet answered.

Red-teaming asks the model to attack your position instead of grading it, which surfaces weak spots a neutral review usually misses, since models lean toward agreeing with you. The follow-up questions push you back to the facts and the case before you commit to a final answer.

Citation Auditor

Below is my full jurisdiction and venue analysis of the BrewMax case: [paste your analysis]. List every legal authority it relies on, meaning each statute, rule, and court case, with its exact citation. For each one, tell me whether it is real and whether you are fully certain the citation is accurate, and flag anything you are not certain about so I can look it up myself. Do not add new authorities or fill gaps with cases you are not sure exist.

This prompt treats the model as a source of leads to verify rather than as the authority itself, and it openly invites the model to admit uncertainty, which is exactly where fabricated citations tend to hide. You then confirm each authority on Google Scholar or the official code site before you rely on it.