Warning
Info
Warning
Info
Simple English definitions for legal terms
fair play and substantial justice
Read a random definition: State of the Union
A quick definition of fair play and substantial justice:
Fair play and substantial justice refers to the requirement that a court must be fair when asserting its power over someone who doesn't live in the same place as the court. This means that the court must have a good reason to make a decision about that person, and the decision must be fair. The court can only do this if the person has some kind of connection to the place where the court is located, like doing business there. This is called minimum contacts. There used to be a list of the lowest fees that lawyers could charge, but this is no longer allowed because it broke antitrust laws.
A more thorough explanation:
Fair play and substantial justice refer to the requirement that a court must meet in its assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to comply with due process. This means that the court must ensure that the defendant's connections to the forum state are substantial enough to bring them within the court's jurisdiction without violating traditional notions of fairness and justice.
Minimum contacts refer to a nonresident defendant's connections to the forum state, such as business activity or actions that could lead to business activity. These connections must be significant enough to justify the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant without violating the principles of fair play and substantial justice.
For example, if a company based in California sells products to customers in New York, it may be subject to personal jurisdiction in New York if it has sufficient minimum contacts with the state. This could include having a physical presence in the state, such as a store or office, or regularly conducting business with customers in the state.
A minimum-fee schedule is a list of the lowest fees that a lawyer may charge, set by a state bar association. However, these schedules are now defunct because they violated antitrust laws.
For example, if a state bar association sets a minimum fee of $500 for all lawyers, this would be considered a violation of antitrust laws because it restricts competition among lawyers and prevents them from setting their own prices based on market demand.