ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> China Business Law Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

International Law

: China Business Law Blog

Amount in Controversy and Jurisdiction Redefined by the SPC (Republish)

By Brad Luo

ADVERTISEMENTS
On March 31, 2008, the Supreme People promulgated a new set of judicial rules, redefining first-instance jurisdiction of higher and intermediate people?s courts in civil matters across the country.In these extremely detailed rules, the SPC lays out the required amount in controversy in order for higher or intermediate people?s courts to exercise first-instance jurisdiction over civil cases. What

Full post as published by China Business Law Blog on February 18, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Oscar Winner Sues Production Company
Ascendant pays Kevin Costner undisclosed amount in settlement.

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!


Plaintiff's Silence Can Be Deadly For Defendant Attempting to Establish Requisite Amount in Controversy For CAFA Removal Jurisdiction.

BP CAFA Removal Class Action Defense Cases-Eatinger v. BP: Kansas Federal Court Refuses To Remand Class Action To State Court Holding Removal Jurisdiction Exists Under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)

Republish your feeds as HTML

CAFA Class Action Defense Cases-Toller v. Sagamore: Arkansas Federal Court Delays Ruling On Motion To Remand Class Action Against Insurer Pending Additional Evidence Of Amount In Controversy For Removal Under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)

If You Do Not Establish Amount in Controversy in CA on a CAFA Removal, You Go Directly to Jail (State Court), Do Not Pass Go, and Do Not Collect $200.

The Dr. Phil Defense: If It Was Friendly, It Was Not Felonious









0.0029 secs (from cache 10/31/26 02:19:51)