When I was training paralegals, I emphasized that jurisdiction was the power of the court to resolve a claim; whereas, venue was a place.  

Example 1 -- The Federal Tort Claims Act provides that after administrative processing of the claim jurisdiction resides with the federal district court.  The venue may be decided by reviewing the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which could be (1) where the act occurred or (2) where the plaintiff resides.

Example 2 -- In Ohio, for a foreclosure case of real property the statute provides that jurisdiction resides with the court of general jurisdiction, i.e., the Court of Common Pleas.  Venue would be 
the county in which the real property is located.  

James C. Funk, Esq., COI
Professor, Marion Technical College (retired)



------- Original Message -------
From    : Daniel Warner[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent    : 4/25/2016 10:38:26 AM
To      : [log in to unmask]
Cc      : 
Subject : RE: Venue and jurisdiction

 

Hi Colleagues,
 
No matter how carefully I explain the difference between venue and jurisdiction, when I ask a question about it on a test, the students almost always want to
 say, for example, “The jurisdiction is California because that’s where the defendant resides and the incident occurred. “  But “where the defendant resides or the incident occurred” is the test for
venue (civil case), not jurisdiction.  
 
And yet, since the test for jurisdiction is “minimum contacts,” and the defendant does have minimum contacts with California if that’s where she resides and
 where the incident occurred, then to use the “resides or occurs” test for jurisdiction doesn’t seem wrong, either.
 
Any suggestions (aside from what one adjunct said, which was, “I just gave up mentioning venue.”)
 
Thank you,
 
Dan
 

Daniel M. Warner
Professor, Department of Accounting
(Business Legal Studies)
MS 9071
Western Washington University
516 High St.
Bellingham, WA 98225
(360) 650-3390