205k views
1 vote
in this case, the court determined it had personal jurisdiction. did the court also have jurisdiction over property located within its boundaries?

User Hamiltonia
by
8.3k points

1 Answer

3 votes

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

It is not possible to answer this question without more specific information about the case in question.

Personal jurisdiction refers to the court's authority to exercise power over a particular individual or entity, such as the defendant in a lawsuit. It is based on a variety of factors, such as the defendant's presence or contacts within the jurisdiction, and is distinct from jurisdiction over property.

Jurisdiction over property, also known as in rem jurisdiction, refers to a court's authority to adjudicate disputes over specific property, regardless of who owns or possesses that property. In rem jurisdiction can be based on a variety of factors, such as the location of the property or the source of a particular claim.

Whether or not the court in the case in question had jurisdiction over property located within its boundaries would depend on the specific facts of the case and the basis for the court's jurisdiction. Without further information, it is impossible to say whether the court had jurisdiction over property as well as over the individuals involved in the case.

User Joseph Wu
by
8.1k points