Opinion ID: 1118569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Distinction Between Excess and Absence of Jurisdiction

Text: The law observes the distinction between excess and absence of jurisdiction over a given subject matter. [6] In the latter circumstance, judicial power to act at all is simply wanting. [7] For example, if a probate court whose authority is limited to wills and decedents' estates should conduct a criminal trial, its jurisdiction to decide any issue in the case is, without a doubt, entirely absent. On the other hand, when the authority to deal with a subject does exist, the manner and extent of the power's exercise, even if patently excessive, will stand, absent of course a direct attack. [8] If a court invested with general jurisdiction over criminal cases should find some act or omission to be a public offense when by law it clearly is not, or should sentence a defendant to eleven years of imprisonment when the maximum confinement prescribed by statute is only ten, the decision would be in excess but not in the absence of the court's jurisdiction. [9] These examples serve to distinguish the absence of jurisdiction from its excess. Our concern in this case is with the consequences flowing from those terms. When a complete absence of jurisdiction appears on the face of the judgment roll (or from an inspection of its administrative counterpart  the agency proceedings), [10] the court's ruling is, of course, void and subject to vacation on direct or collateral attack. [11] The tribunal's decision is deemed void only when the face of the record reveals that at least one of the three elements of agency jurisdiction was absent, i.e., jurisdiction over the parties, jurisdiction over the subject matter or jurisdictional power to pronounce the particular decision that was rendered. [12] In contrast, an excessive exercise of cognizance does not make the decision facially void and vulnerable to collateral attack. [13] An agency order that is not facially void is valid until set aside, and parties may be precluded from setting it aside by ... waiver, estoppel, or the passage of time. [14] Jurisdiction is not wanting but merely exceeded when a statute is misinterpreted or adjudicative authority is exercised erroneously. [15] If extrinsic evidence is needed to show the jurisdiction's absence, the decision is not facially invalid. [16] Firmly rooted in our jurisprudence, [17] these distinctions are applied to agency decisions that fall under the adjudicative rubric. [18]