On this basis, the Federal and the State courts system grew side by side, with each exercising jurisdiction over some areas, and managing to have a concurrent jurisdiction in some areas. It is important to denote that cases brought forth before these courts are always different in nature, and contain different topics. These courts also solve these problems differently, depending on the judge’s interpretation of the law (Falk, 2010). An example of a case that was solved differently by the various courts is the Sekhar vs. United States. This case began from the Federal district courts, all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
The comptroller of the State of New York is the only trustee of the common retirement fund. This is a pension fund for the employee of the state and local government in the state of New York. On this basis, the States comptroller has the authority to approve the various investments for the funds. Before making these decisions, the General Counsel always advices the comptroller on the viability of the investments (Stuntz, 2011).
In the periods of 2008, to 2009, the comptroller wanted to invest the funds in a company referred to as FA Technology Ventures. Had the comptroller invested these funds in this company, FA Technology Ventures would have gotten revenue of 7.6 million dollars. This was in terms of fees charged to the state for purposes of using their services. However, the General Counsel advised the comptroller against investing the funds in FA Technology Ventures (Falk, 2010).
This is because the office of the Attorney General was investigating the company of mismanaging a similar fund. Based on this advice from the General Counsel, the comptroller decided not to invest in FA Technology Ventures. On 17th of November, four days after the comptroller made his decision, the General Counsel received anonymous