Final answer:
The statement about the major case state remaining unchanged when a case is reopened and closed again is usually false since reopening a case can alter its outcome. Additionally, federal courts are more likely to hear a state case when it involves a federal question.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that the major case state remains unchanged even if a case is reopened and closed again is generally false. When a case is reopened, it usually indicates that some matter within the case is being reconsidered which could potentially alter the outcome, and thus change the major case state. However, the context in which this statement is made can affect its accuracy, such as the specific legal system or the reasons for a case being reopened.
As for when a state case is more likely to be heard by federal courts, this is typically true when it involves a federal question. This means that the case involves the interpretation of a federal law, the U.S. Constitution, or treaties. In such situations, even though the case may have originated in a state court, the presence of a federal question grants the federal courts jurisdiction to hear the case.