[5] In New York, for example, the trial level Supreme Court Commercial Division[6] follows the case type and jurisdictional amount in controversy model, giving jurisdiction over 12 listed business and commercial case categories while setting out monetary thresholds ranging from $50,000 in some counties to $500,000 in Manhattan.
[10] North Carolina's Business Court[11] has a similar mixed model that makes jurisdiction mandatory if the listed commercial case type is over $5,000,000, but discretionary if under,[12] as well as a seldom used rule allowing judicial discretion.
[13] The modern creation of specialized Business Courts in the United States began in the early 1990s, and has expanded greatly in the last thirty years.
In 2023, Utah adopted legislation creating a statewide Business and Chancery Court, which became operational on October 1, 2024.
This includes the use of mediation, Masters in Chancery to adjudicate matters, and agreements to make decisions non-appealable.
[37] The Hamilton County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas in Cincinnati discontinued its Commercial Docket in 2017, but revived it in 2024.
California's complex civil litigation program provides an example of defining jurisdiction based on litigation process criteria, such as the presence of large numbers of witnesses, parties, and pre-trial motions, and the need for coordination with other cases (though some categories of case types are deemed provisionally complex).
[62] Examples exist in England and Wales,[64][65] Toronto,[66] Montreal,[67] Quebec,[68] and Alberta,[69] Canada, Ireland,[70] Scotland,[71] Denmark,[72] Hong Kong, Belgium, Bermuda,[73] Queensland[74] and Victoria (Commercial Court),[75] Australia, New Zealand (Commercial Panel),[76] Northern Ireland,[77] Spain,[78] in France[79] (where the commercial courts are not divisions of other civil courts, but are autonomous[62]), Switzerland,[80][81] Austria,[82] Tanzania,[83] Rwanda,[84] Lesotho,[85] South Africa,[86] the British Virgin Islands,[87] St. Lucia,[88] Cayman Islands,[89] Guyana,[90] India,[91] Japan,[92][93] Malaysia,[94] Thailand,[95] Kenya,[96] Malawi,[97] Saudi Arabia,[98] and Croatia.
[106] This reflects the growth in international commercial courts designed to hear disputes among parties from different nations.
[126] From 2017 through 2024, the SIFoCC has held five full meetings, with dozens of judges from around the world, most recently in April 2024 in Doha, Qatar.
[127][128][129][130] In its 2023 policy resolution, the Association of Corporate Counsel recognizes and endorses the creation and support of business courts internationally, as well as in the United States.
[131] In the United States and internationally, "[t]he notion of specialized courts to decide technology disputes has a rich history with noteworthy milestones.
"[132] Some states have established specialized business and commercial courts that include technology disputes as part of their express jurisdiction.
[133] Through legislative effort and court rule, in 2003, Maryland established a Business and Technology Case Management Program.
[137] Michigan's business court jurisdiction includes disputes "involving information technology, software, or website development, maintenance, or hosting...."[138] Wyoming Chancery Court Rules provide jurisdiction over disputes concerning registered digital assets.
[140] This amendment is intended to make clear that New York is as experienced in handling technology as any other state's courts.
"[133][146][147] For example, North Carolina's Business Court was an early proponent of electronic filing and high-tech courtrooms.
[149] The use of technology in case management may be especially apt in international commercial courts, with litigation between parties from different nations.
For example, North Carolina's Governor established the North Carolina Commission on Business Laws and the Economy,[152] New York Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye created a Commercial Courts Task Force,[153] a Nevada Legislative Commission formed a Subcommittee to Encourage Corporations and Other Business Entities to Organize and Conduct Business in this State,[154] Maryland's General Assembly created a Business and Technology Court Task Force,[155] and the South Carolina Bar, with South Carolina Supreme Court approval, created a Task Force on Courts.
[156] Other examples of states creating task forces to study and make recommendations concerning the implementation of business courts include, among others, Indiana,[157] Michigan,[158] West Virginia,[159] Arizona,[160] Georgia,[161] Iowa,[162] New Jersey,[163] Ohio,[164] Delaware,[165] Mississippi[166] (no court created), Texas,[167] and Oklahoma (May 2024).
[37] Other groups have studied and reported on operations and practices in functioning business and commercial courts, to provide information and/or recommendations.
Massachusetts, Superior Court Chief Justice Suzanne V. DelVecchio[168] created a Business Litigation Resource Committee.
[175] In 2023, Utah's Supreme Court created an Advisory Committee on the Rules of Business and Chancery Procedure.
[177] The CDAC "is composed of distinguished commercial practitioners and Judges from around the state and [has been] chaired by Robert L. Haig, Esq.
[191] The Ohio State Bar Association's Corporation Law Committee urged a detailed resolution to expand the Commercial Docket statewide.
[233] Some U.S. business courts expressly encourage the use of special masters or referees in expediting some types of decision making during the litigation process, for example in North Carolina,[234] Kentucky,[235] New York,[140] Indiana,[236] Orlando,[237] Ft. Lauderdale,[238] and Georgia.
[241][242] A substantial part of the Commercial Court of England and Wales' docket involves arbitration appeals.