Week 1

Court Systems and Jurisdiction Supreme Court Side with Wal-Mart

1. This story is about the Supreme Courts decision. What process did this case
have to go through to get to the Supreme Court?
In order to be heard by the Supreme Court, a case must first be lost at the state
level and heard in either the intermediate or superior court of appeals. Once it has
been lost here it can go to the state supreme court or a federal circuit court of
appeals. Finally, a party can attempt to appeal to the US Supreme Court where a
writ of certiorari, which is an order to the lower courts to send records of the case to
the US Supreme Court (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne, 2013). A writ will only be
issued when at least four of the Justices vote to hear the case at hand. There are 4
instances that make a writ more likely to be heard by the U Supreme Court (1) the
case presents a substantial federal question that has not yet been addressed by the
Supreme Court; (2) the case has involved the circuit of appeals and received
conflicting verdicts have been reached; (3) a state court holds a federal law is
invalid or upholds a state law that has been challenged as violating federal law; or
(4) a federal court rules that an act of Congress is unconstitutional (Kubasek et al,
2013).
2. In the story, two justices wrote differing opinions about the issue. Discuss the
differences between a majority opinion, a concurring opinion, and a
dissenting opinion. What effect does each type of opinion have on the state
of the law of America?
Opinions are something that everyone has and a lot of times they are different,
which makes everything more interesting. So there is no surprise there are different
types of opinions when it comes to opinions which include majority, concurring, and
dissenting. A majority opinion is when the majority of the judges vote in a particular

manor, so it is 2 out of 3 type of situation. A majority opinion effects American law

by setting precedence with judges will use for future decisions and by attorneys to
advise clients in similar situations (Kubasek et a, 2013). A concurring opinion is
when a judge agrees with the majority decision but for a different reason than the
majority. This type of opinion effects the law of American by showing how a judge
might agree but for different reasons, so other judges and attorneys know other
precedence where a judge might agree with a certain ruling. A dissenting opinion is
when a judge or judges do not agree with the majority decision and explain their
reasoning. This effects American law by being used to argue why laws should be
changed or how to go about making a change to future rulings and why it should be
done (Kubasek et al, 2013).
3. What type of jurisdiction did the federal courts have in the case? Was it a
federal question case or a diversity of citizenship case? Why?
This case is under concurrent jurisdiction meaning that both federal and state
courts have jurisdiction and the plaintiff may file in the trial court of either system. A
federal question is when an interpretation of the US Constitution, a federal statue,
or a federal treaty is required and may be heard in either state of federal court
(Kubasek et al, 2013). A diversity of citizenship case is when opponents in a case
are from two different states, but if the opposing side reside in the same states the
diversity is lost (Kubasek et al, 2013). This case is a diversity of citizenship since all
the opponents of the case are spread out throughout the different Wal-Marts in the
United States. So there are definitely people from different states involved in this
making it a diversity issue.

Kubasek, N. K., Brennan B. A., Browne, M. N. (2013). The Legal Environment of

Business, 7th Edition.

[VitslSource Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from

https://devry.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781323000991/