Which of these is an instance of a court not having subject matter jurisdiction in a case? An Oregon couple undergoing a complex divorce files to have their case heard in a Portland family law court.
A man is injured in a car accident in Michigan and sues the driver of the other car in a district court in Detroit.
A woman in Iowa is filing for bankruptcy and asks the U. S. District Court in Cedar Rapids to exempt her home from the proceedings.
A California family is arguing over how to deal with a house owned by the recently deceased parents and seek help from a family court in Los Angeles.

A California family is arguing over how to deal with a house owned by the recently deceased parents and seek help from a family court in Los Angeles

Explanation:

For a court to solve a dispute, it must have jurisdiction over the subject of matter presented if not the judgment can be rendered void . The subject matter jurisdiction is the ability of a court to hear particular matters. For example the family court is to hear family related matters like divorce, adoptions e.t.c. The probate court handles matters concerning properties of a deceased person, juvenile court handles matters of underage and district court handles matters like bankruptcy, accidents, theft e.t.c.

A family court cannot handle cases arising from matters concerning properties of a dead person

i'm asking the same thing i asked this other cat all of

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is