A woman in one state is suing a woman in another state for $25,000. Which one of

the following statements is accurate regarding the jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed?
A. The court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the nonresident.
B. The court has exclusive jurisdiction over the nonresident.
C. Since the women live in different states, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction.
D. The courts in both states share concurrent jurisdiction in this case.

C is this correct?

I think B

No, the correct answer is A. The court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the nonresident.

To determine the accuracy of the statement, we need to understand the concept of personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to make decisions or rulings that are binding on the parties involved in a legal dispute. Generally, a court has personal jurisdiction over a person if that person has sufficient minimum contacts with the jurisdiction in which the court is located.

In the given scenario, since the woman being sued resides in a different state from the woman filing the lawsuit, the court in the state where the case was filed would need to have personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant (the woman being sued) in order to hear the case.

The concept of personal jurisdiction is based on the idea that a court can only exercise its authority over individuals or entities that have sufficient connections or contacts with the jurisdiction in question. The specific requirements for establishing personal jurisdiction can vary depending on the laws and rules of the particular jurisdiction, but in general, courts can exercise personal jurisdiction if the defendant has purposefully availed themselves of the benefits and protections of the jurisdiction, such as by conducting business or having substantial contacts in that state.

Therefore, statement A, "The court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the nonresident," accurately reflects the situation in this case.