a) Moore v. Richardson, 332 Ark. 255 (1998).
Ms. Moore and Mr. Richardson divorced and Ms. Moore was granted custody of their minor daughter. Mr. Richardson was required to pay child support accordingly and have visitation rights. The case is good law. It is binding to Arkansas court. Clearly, Arkansas court made the final judgment about the custody of the child and visitation by the father.
b) Glanding v. Industrial Trust Co., 45 A.2d 553 (1945).
The Court of Chancery is not given the jurisdiction to award penalties on government cost recovery cases as it is of limited jurisdiction. Therefore its laws are not mandatory as it can be honored by The Supreme Court who will make the decision. Therefore any cost recovery action is not available at equity. Similarly, private cost recovery actions should be addressed at the Superior Court.
c) People v. Jackson, 150 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 1983).
The case is mandatory. The required proceeding should be brought forth during the trial and appellate processes. A party has a right to appeal and the courts have the obligation of giving the party permission to change facts during the appeal as long as there is reasonable evidence and facts. Infringement of personal should not occur and statements should be made depending on standard of evidence. However a party is not to change theories in the trial and appeal court.
d)Landers v. Staten Island R. Co., 53 N.Y. 450 (1873).
Criminal jurisdiction and civil jurisdiction brings about the protective jurisdiction of courts. They necessitate the occasions for instituting the proceedings. Further criminal and civil jurisdiction therefore implies with respect to the mature of the subject matter and civil or criminal mature of the actions. Such an action therefore does not aim in the creation of another authority. Territorial aspects may come in hand, however the nature of the action determines the jurisdiction the case will be handled.
It merely extends the limits of the particular jurisdiction. It is therefore not mandatory. e) Merriman v. Crompton Corp., 282 Kan. 433; 146 P.3d 162 (2006). There are certain analyses that can be determined depending if a court has jurisdiction over a defendant. A person can be submitted to a particular jurisdiction if the person is a citizen or not and depending on whether he/she committed a criminal act in that jurisdiction or whether he/she was transacting any business in that state.