<P> The amount specified has been regularly increased over the past two centuries . Courts will use the legal certainty test to decide whether the dispute is over $75,000 . Under the legal certainty test, the court will accept the pleaded amount unless it is legally certain that the pleading party cannot recover more than $75,000 . For example, if the dispute is solely over the breach of a contract by which the defendant had agreed to pay the plaintiff $10,000, a federal court will dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or remand the case to state court if it arrived via removal . </P> <P> In personal injury cases, plaintiffs will sometimes claim amounts "not to exceed $75,000" in their complaint to avoid removal of the case to federal court . If the amount is left unspecified in the ad damnum, as is required by the pleading rules of many states, the defendant may sometimes be able to remove the case to federal court unless the plaintiff's lawyer files a document expressly disclaiming damages in excess of the jurisdictional requirement . Because juries decide what personal injuries are worth, compensation for injuries may exceed $75,000 such that the "legal certainty" test will not bar federal court jurisdiction . Many plaintiffs' lawyers seek to avoid federal courts because of the perception that they are more hostile to plaintiffs than most state courts . </P> <P> A longstanding judge - made rule holds that federal courts have no jurisdiction over divorce or other domestic relations cases, even if there is diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount of money in controversy meets the jurisdictional limit . As the Supreme Court has stated, "(t) he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states, and not to the laws of the United States ." The court concluded "that the domestic relations exception...divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees ." In explaining this exception, the high court noted that domestic cases frequently required the issuing court to retain jurisdiction over recurring disputes in interpreting and enforcing those decrees . State courts have developed expertise in dealing with these matters, and the interest of judicial economy required keeping that litigation in the courts most experienced to handle it . However, federal courts are not limited in their ability to hear tort cases arising out of domestic situations by the doctrine . </P> <P> A similar exception has been recognized for probate and decedent's estate litigation, which continues to hold for the primary cases; diversity jurisdiction does not exist to probate wills or administer decedent's estates directly . Diversity jurisdiction is allowed for some litigation that arises under trusts and other estate planning documents, however . </P>

What do we mean by the term concurrent jurisdiction