Opinion ID: 2549213
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court Has A Constitutionally-Derived Unlimited Original Cognizance Over Mother's Claim To Father's Support For Her Disabled Adult Child

Text: ¶ 5 The district court's subject-matter jurisdiction is derived from the State's constitution. Under its provisions, the court serves as an omnicompetent, single-level, first-instance tribunal [4] with unlimited original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters.... [5] While that constitutionally-conferred jurisdiction is conceptually indivisible, even though its exercise stands carved into several separate dockets, [6] the full sweep of its cognizance cannot be abridged by either legislation or caselaw. It is the constitutional breadth of the district court's jurisdiction, not the parties' consent, that operates to invest the trial court with cognizance over Mother's claim for an adult child's support. The district court clearly erred in bottoming its dismissal on lack of jurisdiction.