The rules that the court uses to determine the admissibility of evidence in a court case is admissible, authentic, complete, reliable, and believable.
Answer: No, because a dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction is not on the merits.
Explanation:
Following the information given in the question, it should be noted that the case should not be dismissed by the court due to the fact that the dismissal is based on the lack of personal jurisdiction.
It should be noted that the claim preclusion should be added to the answer of the defendant as it's an affirmative defense and it requires more than the claimant bringing a case against the same defendant.
The opposing lawyer would try to prove to a panel of 8 jurors that he did indeed steal the cards and use them. If at least 6 of the 8 jurors determine he did, then he would have to pay the cardholders back for the charges he put on the card. If 6 of the 8 jurors determine he didn't do it, then the case is dropped. If it's somewhere in the middle, then it's a hung jury and there would be a retrial. I recently sat on a jury for 3 weeks for a more complicated civil case.
Answer:
All agencies have to interpret their enabling legislation to determine what they can legally do. If the legislation is clear and detailed, the agency's role will be easy to determine and there will be little controversy over the interpretation of the law
