text:
Subject-matter jurisdiction

Subject-matter jurisdiction, also called jurisdiction ratione materiae, is a legal doctrine holding that a court can only hear and decide cases of a particular type (i.e., cases relating to a specific subject matter). The subject matter jurisdiction of a court may be described as either limited jurisdiction, meaning it is able to hear only certain types of cases, or general jurisdiction, meaning it is presumed able to hear and decide all types of cases. For instance, a bankruptcy court only has the authority to hear bankruptcy cases.

Subject-matter jurisdiction must be distinguished from personal jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to render a judgment against a particular defendant, and territorial jurisdiction, which is the power of the court to render a judgment concerning events that have occurred within a well-defined territory. Unlike personal or territorial jurisdiction, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. A judgment from a court that did not have subject-matter jurisdiction is forever a nullity. To decide a case, a court must have a combination of subject (subjectam) and either personal (personam) or territorial (locum) jurisdiction.

Subject-matter jurisdiction, personal or territorial jurisdiction, and adequate notice are the three most fundamental constitutional requirements for a valid judgment.

General jurisdiction vs. limited jurisdiction
The subject matter jurisdiction of state courts and federal courts in the United States often overlaps. Many types of cases can be heard either in state or federal courts. However, the federal courts are all courts of limited jurisdiction, while most states have both courts of limited jurisdiction and courts of general jurisdiction.

State courts
Most U.S. state court systems include a superior court that has "general" jurisdiction; that is, it is competent to hear any case over which no other state or federal court has exclusive jurisdiction. (Superior Courts might nonetheless organize themselves into specialized departments or divisions, the court as a whole still has general jurisdiction.) Because the percentage of claims over which the United States federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction, such as copyright disputes, patent disputes, and United States bankruptcy court disputes, makes up a small percentage of overall cases, state courts have the authority to hear the vast majority state and federal of cases.

U.S. federal courts
Subject-matter jurisdiction is significantly more limited in United States federal courts. The maximal constitutional bounds of federal courts' subject-matter jurisdiction are defined by Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Federal courts' actual subject-matter jurisdiction derives from Congressional enabling statutes, such as and. The United States Congress has not extended federal courts' subject-matter jurisdiction to its constitutional limits. For example, the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction is based on, not a constitutional restriction. Moreover, Congress could constitutionally overrule the complete diversity rule in diversity cases, which predominantly holds that each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than each defendant.

The two primary categories of federal subject-matter jurisdiction in civil cases are federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. The enabling statute for federal question jurisdiction,, provides that the district courts have original jurisdiction in all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. As mentioned before, this jurisdiction by default is not exclusive; states can also hear claims based on federal law. The enabling statute for diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, grants the district courts jurisdiction in a most types of actions, so long as they meet two basic conditions:

 * Complete diversity requirement. No defendant is a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff.
 * Amount in controversy requirement. The matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Federal courts separately may exert diversity jurisdiction over class action cases so long as they meet the jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, namely:

 * Minimal diversity. At least one member of the class is a citizen of a different state than at least one defendant.
 * Amount in controversy requirement. The matter in controversy exceeds $5 million.

Federal courts also have removal jurisdiction, which is the authority to try cases removed by defendants from state courts. The contours of removal jurisdiction are almost identical to those of original jurisdiction.

According to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a federal court has the authority to dismiss a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction upon motion of a party or sua sponte, upon its own initiative.

In federal criminal cases (offenses against the laws of the United States), the federal district courts of the United States have subject matter jurisdiction granted under.

title: Subject-matter jurisdiction


text:
Talk:Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003

I assume this bill was not passed, but the article does not mention that. Can someone confirm that? I don't know how to tell for sure. Thanks - Taxman 22:12, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:Solid oxide fuel cell

Untitled

 * A diagram of the balance of plant is requested. Mion (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

SOFC or solid oxide fuel cells are made in two distinct designs, tubular and planar. ITSOFC

This should mention BloomEnergy!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.248.185 (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

in the anode section it says

The four minerals that make up a SOFC are BSCF (barium, strontium, cobalt, iron). Crystal Structure of Yttria-doped Barium Zirconate was shown. This was done after just explaining that the anode was Ni with YSZ? I think this must be a mistake.

Jim Mikulak (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Out of the references given, 8/9 were from one individual, by the same username. Consequently, the article is extremely biased. The technology evovles at thousands of labs worldwide, not just one in Europe. Wikipedia is not an advertisement portal for personal gains, or to get higher "referenced by" quotes. Open for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am b5538 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

 * In the article 3 similar sources are mentioned, if you are aware of similar or better sources feel free to add them. If there is an update from 2 references to 13 references, situations like this happen, usually references are improved on over time. Thanks for noting it. Cheers Mion (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
So that editors can better watch over this concern I have placed links at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to both this talk page and to Talk:Fuel cell. -84user (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

How efficient?
To compare this fuel cell with an internal combustion engine or other motive device, one needs efficiency values. How much energy is lost in reformating the fuel? What is the energy conversion efficiency of the fuel cell? What is the overall energy conversion efficiency. This article doesn't say so, but the carbon in natural gas or other fossil fuel must still be converted to CO2 so the reduction in CO2 emissions must come as result of higher relative energy conversion efficiency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R Stillwater (talk • contribs) 07:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible temperature conversion mistake?
Under the Electrolyte section, it mentions the lower temperature limit of 873K. Wondering if this should be 773K, based on the earlier reports that SOFC's operate between 500°C to 1,000°C. If this is the case, then the 273 degree difference factor between °C and K would produce 773K.

...unless the fact really is 873K. (130.134.235.94 (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC))

Layout
I felt the layout was a little off. I think the target section could be in operation. The intro had a lot of different random facts in it. I felt it could be distributed through operation, research, and the intro above and below the picture. I also believe there could be a new section titled Components to take some clutter out of the operation section. Lastly, the power of plant part I felt didn’t need it’s own title. That part also was 1 sentence consisting of broken links. SRMcGarvey (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

One day
One Day yall come here but i was first, im high asf now! 2A02:A420:4:732D:2:1:9470:F32C (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect description of the redox chemistry
The oxide ions cannot be responsible for the oxidation reaction as they are already reduced. Further, if the oxide ions oxidized the fuel, then no useful work could be extracted from the fuel cells. The fuel is oxidized at the anode. The cationic products from the anode reaction combine with oxide ions in the electrolyte in an acid base reaction. More oxide ions are generated at the cathode, replenishing the electrolyte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C52:7D7F:EFA7:A47D:A757:2799:A6C2 (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Solid oxide fuel cell


text:
Talk:Lentienses

I've just overhauled the English in this article, but two parts have me stymied:

 * and Priarius their felt during the battle
 * This was the last campaign by any Roman emperor behind the Limes area right side of the river Rhine.

I've no idea what they were intended to express, but if someone (the original author?) could help me, I'll rewrite and reinsert them. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello Mel Etitis!

Thank you for your kind help. Unfortunately my English is not the best and for me it is very hard to find the right words for this archaeological issues:

 * and Priarius their KING felt during the battle
 * (Priarius the King has been killed)

 * This was the last campaign by any Roman emperor behind the Limes area right side of the river Rhine.
 * (This battle was the last battle/campaign any Roman emperor started against germans in the roman areas on the right side of the river Rhine within the roman Limes border)

I really hope you will undertand this explanation otherwise please contact me again.

Thank You! Andi Bullenwächter 20:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lentienses