Final answer:
State courts have in personam jurisdiction over defendants present within their jurisdiction, with sufficient ties to the state, or who have been legally summoned to court. They often handle criminal and civil cases unless a federal question is involved or the case has elements that require federal jurisdiction, such as interstate commerce or diversity of citizenship cases.
Step-by-step explanation:
A state court generally has in personam jurisdiction over defendants who are physically present in the jurisdiction of the court, have sufficient minimum contacts with the jurisdiction to justify the court's authority, have consented to the jurisdiction, or have been properly served with legal process within the state.
The concept of personam jurisdiction lies at the heart of the judicial system's ability to hear and decide cases. As part of the court fundamentals, in civil cases, the plaintiff brings a complaint against the defendant, who is then required to respond to the allegations. If a case is sufficiently connected to the federal system through issues like "federal questions"—which involve the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties—or if it features a "federal party" such as the U.S. government, a state case can be escalated to the federal courts.
Moreover, state courts routinely hear cases that involve a vast range of legal matters, including but not limited to criminal, civil, probate, family, and contract disputes. In scenarios where cases touch upon specific federal aspects—like disputes involving diversity of citizenship or larger interstate matters—the federal court system, including the Supreme Court with its original jurisdiction in certain cases, may supersede state courts. This delineation between state and federal jurisdiction ensures that matters are handled by the appropriate system and highlights the diverse responsibilities that state courts hold within the U.S. judicial framework.