Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Ancillary jurisdiction is a form of supplemental jurisdiction that allows a United States federal court to hear non-federal claims sufficiently logically dependent on a federal "anchor claim" (i.e., a federal claim serving as the basis for supplemental jurisdiction), despite that such courts would otherwise lack jurisdiction over such claims ...
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 [1] permits supplemental jurisdiction over joined claims that do not individually meet the amount-in-controversy requirements of § 1332, [2] provided that at least one claim meets the amount-in-controversy requirements.
Proper jurisdiction is determined by a finding of whether the suit that is being initiated arises from the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the suit. Crossclaims, like joinder generally, can promote efficient, consistent resolutions of disputes by permitting all claims arising from the same set of facts to be ...
United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in order for a United States district court to have pendent jurisdiction over a state-law cause of action, state and federal claims must arise from the same "common nucleus of operative fact" and the plaintiff must expect to try them all at once. [1]
The third-party defendant must then assert any defense under Rule 12 and any counterclaim under Rule 13(a), and may assert any counterclaim under Rule 13(b) or any cross-claim under Rule 13(g). Rule 14(a)(4): Any party may move to strike the third-party claim, to sever it, or to try it separately.
Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 , was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the jurisdictional requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). [1] In response to the Finley decision, the United States Congress enacted a new statute on supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367. [2]
The Erie doctrine is a fundamental legal doctrine of civil procedure in the United States which mandates that a federal court called upon to resolve a dispute not directly implicating a federal question (most commonly when sitting in diversity jurisdiction, but also when applying supplemental jurisdiction to claims factually related to a federal question or in an adversary proceeding in ...
The court must have either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction over the intervenor's claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is not permitted for intervention claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) when the original claim's federal jurisdiction was based solely on diversity and exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the intervening ...