Subject Matter LINK
Jurisdiction may be broken down into two categories: personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is the requirement that a given court have power over the defendant, based on minimum contacts with the forum. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the requirement that a given court have power to hear the specific kind of claim that is brought to that court. While litigating parties may waive personal jurisdiction, they cannot waive subject-matter jurisdiction. In federal court, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is considered a favored defense and may be raised at any point in the litigation process, even if the parties had previously argued that subject-matter jurisdiction existed. In fact, the court may dismiss a case sua sponte (on its own) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1).
The requirement that a court have subject-matter jurisdiction means that the court can only assume power over a claim which it is authorized to hear under the laws of the jurisdiction. For example, Congress limited the subject-matter jurisdiction of the United States Tax Court to cases related to taxation; thus, that court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over any other matter. Most state courts are courts of general jurisdiction, whereas federal courts have limited jurisdiction. That is, state courts are presumed to have power to hear virtually any claim arising under federal or state law, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. However, for pragmatic reasons some states deny subject-matter jurisdiction to specific claims, such as those arising in other states. Most states also maintain specialized courts of limited subject-matter jurisdiction. Examples of these types of courts include probate courts, traffic courts, juvenile courts, and small claims courts. As for federal courts, with few exceptions found in the Constitution itself, Congress defines their limited subject-matter jurisdiction. In order to bring an action in federal court, the plaintiff must find a constitutional or congressional grant of subject-matter jurisdiction to allow the federal court to hear the claim. See U.S. Const. Art. III, Sec. 2. As a general rule, courts read congressional grants of subject-matter jurisdiction narrowly, resolving any ambiguities in favor of denying jurisdiction.
The jurisdictional division between state and federal tribunals is an essential component of American federalism. Federal courts possess exclusive jurisdiction over certain subject matter, notably issues like patent and admiralty law, which have national significance. See 28 U.S.C. 1333, 1338. Exclusive jurisdiction over such issues indicates a significant federal interest in the subject matter and allows for the development of a uniform body of federal law governing complex issues that have interstate implications. Further, the limited jurisdiction of federal courts encourages parties to resort to local tribunals when adjudicating issues relevant to those courts. This inhibits excessive federal judicial intervention and funnels claims into courts that are most knowledgeable about the applicable law. Federal and state courts also have concurrent subject-matter jurisdiction over many issues, allowing parties to chose whether to litigate in a federal or state tribunal.
Finally, it is important to recognize the far-reaching impact of the concept of subject-matter jurisdiction. While discourse on subject-matter jurisdiction is often related to the relationship between domestic courts, subject-matter jurisdiction plays a role in international law as well. For example, issues frequently arise involving the jurisdiction of international criminal tribunals, like the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Here, subject-matter jurisdiction has international political significance because parties must decide the degree to which a supranational tribunal can affect persons traditionally subject to domestic law.
A subject-matter expert (SME) is a person who has accumulated great knowledge in a particular field or topic and this level of knowledge is demonstrated by the person's degree, licensure, and/or through years of professional experience with the subject, i.e. a PhD in chemistry could be easily declared as an SME in chemistry, or a person with a Second Class Radio Telegraph License (or equivalent) issued by the national licensing body (Federal Communications Commission in the United States, Ofcom in the UK, and National Telecommunications Commission in the Philippines, and other authorities around the world) could be considered an SME in radio telegraph. A person with a master's degree in electronic engineering could be considered a subject matter expert in electronics, or a person with many years of experience in machining could be considered a subject matter expert in machining.
Coursework used to renew a nursing license must qualify as appropriate subject matter for continuing education. Nurses should take coursework that applies to one's practice area. Appropriate subject matter definition covers all courses, including academic courses, courses form approved providers, courses granted special approval, and any courses used for license renewal. (Refer to What Qualifies)
5.3(4)a. Criteria related to appropriate subject matter. Appropriate subject matter for continuing education credits reflects the educational needs of the nurse learner and the health needs of the consumer. Subject matter is limited to offerings that are scientifically founded and predominantly for professional growth. The following areas are deemed appropriate subject matter for continuing education credit:
The chart that follows provides general information on the MTEL tests that are currently offered to meet the subject matter test requirement for each license. Additional requirements for a license, such as passing the Communication and Literacy Skills test or an approved alternative as part of the regulatory pilot, may need to be met. The Department has approved a limited number of subject matter knowledge alternative assessments for specific content areas as part of the regulatory pilot. Please know that candidates must meet specific requirements to be eligible for each of the available subject matter knowledge alternative assessments. Eligibility requirements are provided in the descriptions of each of the alternative assessments. For more information, please see the approved subject
We helped develop a process that allows HR to leverage subject matter experts to evaluate candidates for specialized roles. The result restores fair and open access for all applicants, shortens the hiring timeline, and ensures applicants are truly qualified.
Changes to Options to Meet Subject Matter Requirement Signed into LawOn July 9, 2021, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 130 (Chap. 44, Stats. 2021) which included significant changes in the options for candidates to demonstrate subject matter competence. The new law would allow a new coursework option, the use of certain majors, and a combination of coursework and passage of applicable examination subtests. Although this law takes effect immediately, Commission staff will be seeking approval of emergency regulations in order to fully implement this law. In addition, staff is working on developing guidance documents, FAQs and technical assistance for program sponsors as quickly as possible. More information on all of these resources will be available soon and will be provided in the PSD eNews and other direct communications to the field.
The 175 scored questions on the MBE are distributed evenly, with 25 questions from each of the seven subject areas: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Contracts, Criminal Law and Procedure, Evidence, Real Property, and Torts.
Applicants must demonstrate that they are proficient in the subject matter area of their intended credential before clinical practice, as required by California Education Code. AB 130 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 2021) has expanded how candidates may demonstrate subject matter proficiency.
Successful completion of coursework at one or more regionally accredited institutions of higher education that addresses each of the domains of the subject matter requirements adopted by the commission in the content area of the credential pursuant to Section 44282, as verified by a Commission-approved program of professional preparation. Courses must:
All credential candidates must demonstrate their proficiency in the subject matter area of their intended credential and it is recommended that applicants complete this requirement prior to submitting an application for admission. While we can move forward with an offer of admission prior to a candidate meeting the Subject Matter requirement, the expectation is that admitted students will take all required CSET exams no later than May 1st and pass or meet the Subject Matter Requirement by July 31st of the year they begin the program. If requirements are not met by the start of the program, your progress in the program can be impacted. Please click here for more information.
2. Subject Matter Waiver Program: completing an approved subject matter waiver program as an undergraduate. A waiver program requires you to pass a very specific set of courses. At UC Davis we have a waiver program in Agriculture and Mathematics. Click here for more information.
3. Academic major in the subject area: earning an academic major in the subject area of the credential being sought. The academic major and the subject to which you are applying must be an exact match. Click here for more information.
4. Coursework: completion of a course addressing each of the Commission-adopted subject matter domains for each subtest. Coursework can be used to pass any or all subtests. This option is different from the Subject Matter Waiver Program. Click here for more information. 041b061a72