[mr.yet]

IN a civil case, if the plaintiff never attend the hearing, can the court grant judgment when no plaintiff is there?

Would that judgment be consider void, since the court did not obtain jurisdiction to hear the case?

Can a affidavit that is not notarized be considered valid as evidence before the court, since the defendant cannot ask them question?

Would a Writ of Habeas Corpus be correct for disputing the courts ruling?

[RickJ]

I could swear that you asked this very same question some months ago but I can't find it.
Am I just going crazy?

[mr.yet]

This is a different question>

[ScottGem]

A judgement can be issued if the defendant doesn't show up, but if the plaintiff doesn't the case would be dismissed. No complaint no action. The plaintiff would be free to resubmit.

Given the constitutional right to confront one's accuser, it would have to depend on the what the affadavit is attesting to. Generally only sworn depositions would be acceptable.

Habeas corpus is applicable in criminal cases where a defendant may be detained illegally. It wouldn't be applicable in a civil case.

[mr.yet]

Would Habeas corpus ad respondendum (You should/ have the body to answer) against the court?

If no one was there the court should not have jurisdiction and should have dismissed the action, for want of jurisidction, I believe!

[Fr_Chuck]

If the defendant does not show up, they can still rule on the judgement, if the plaintiff does not show up, they will either dissmiss the case or continue the case to a future date

A court can not hear a case, put it on its schedule if it does not have jurisdiction over the case it is about to hear. If you believe that court does not have jurisdiction you can make a motion to have the case moved to a court with jurisdiction

And Habeas corpus deals in criminal cases, so I doubt you are in jail because of a civil case

[ScottGem]

Jurisdiction is not the issue. A court will not put a case on its docket if it doesn't have jurisdiciton in the matter. But a case DOES need a complainant. In criminal cases the complainant is the state represented by a prosecutor. In Civil cases the complainant is the plaintiff. If the plaintiff doesn't show then there is no complainant and the case cannot go forward. So it will be dismissed.

Again Habeas Corpus is a criminal issue.

[mr.yet]

Habeas corpus the writ applies equally for any other fact or circumstance, civil or criminal, in which the liberty of someone is restrained in any meaningful manner.

In this case a judgment granted without the court having jursidiction to rule upon he case.

The writ I believe would command the court to produce the competent witness. In this case no competent witness was there.

Jurisdiction is the issue, court cannot confer jurisdiction upon themselves, it must be grand by the parties to the case.

[ScottGem]

Yes, Habeas Corpus is applicable wherever there is an unlawful detention. But Civil cases generally do not involve detentions. I would have to know how someone's liberty was restrained to determine if habeas corpus applied.

As noted before, jurisdiction would normally be dtermined before a case was placed on a court docket.

Courts don't produce witnesses. You can petition the court for a subpeona ro be served on a witness.

Parties grant a court jurisdiction when they file the case.

[mr.yet]

Would it be safe to say, if the plaintiff does not show, the swear to their claim, the court would not have jurisdiction to decide the case before it?

Their was no one there for the plaintiff except the attorney for the plaintiff, who cannot testisfy for his client.



If a court doesn't have personal jurisdiction over all the parties and the subject matter involved, it "lacks jurisdiction," which means it doesn't have the power to render a decision.


Wouldn't that make the decision of the court null and void, since the court had no authority to rule for the plaintiff?

[ScottGem]

Would it be safe to say, if the plaintiff does not show, the swear to their claim, the court would not have jurisdiction to decide the case before it?

I said before, every case needs a complainant. That complainant or their representative MUST appear for a case to heard. Its not an issue of jurisdiction. While a court can hand down a judgement in default if the defendant doesn't show, it cannot hand down any judgement if the complainant isn't there.

Their was no one there for the plaintiff except the attorney for the plaintiff, who cannot testisfy for his client.

The complainant may NOT need to testify. Its possible for the attorney to make their case without such testimony. Therefore, its not necessary for the complainant to appear as long as their representative (the attorney) does.

If a court doesn't have personal jurisdiction over all the parties and the subject matter involved, it "lacks jurisdiction," which means it doesn't have the power to render a decision.

A court may not have jurisdiciton for a variety of reasons. But generally, a case would not be accepted for the docket if the court didn't have jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction might then be grounds to appeal the decision, but it doesn't prevent the court from rendering a decision.

Wouldn't that make the decision of the court null and void, since the court had no authority to rule for the plaintiff?

That would be up to an appeals court to decide.