Final answer:
When a court lacks personal jurisdiction, any judgment it renders is void. Personal jurisdiction is essential for legal decisions to be enforceable, and a lack of it renders any judgments ineffective.
Step-by-step explanation:
If the court lacks personal jurisdiction, then any judgment rendered is void. Personal jurisdiction refers to the court's authority over the parties involved in the litigation. Without this jurisdiction, any decision or judgment made by the court is not legally enforceable and can be challenged as having no legal effect. A judgment entered without personal jurisdiction is not binding on the parties, and therefore, its enforceability is equivalent to having no judgment at all.
By way of example, a summary judgment, which is a judgment entered without a full trial, still requires the court to have personal jurisdiction to be enforceable. The proceedings of the International Court of Justice, such as in Breard v. Greene, also underscore the importance of jurisdiction in legal matters, including in cases that touch on capital punishment.
Courts cannot act beyond their jurisdictional powers as they derive authority from the laws and regulations that establish their scope of influence. The judgments of a court without the necessary jurisdiction are therefore lacking in legal force and cannot compel action or compliance.