Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Supplemental jurisdiction, also sometimes known as ancillary jurisdiction or pendent jurisdiction, is the authority of United States federal courts to hear additional claims substantially related to the original claim even though the court would lack the subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the additional claims independently.
Pendent party jurisdiction is a form of supplemental jurisdiction covered by 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Subsection (b) prohibits parties from being joined in a federal case brought under the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts (where diversity is the sole basis of federal court jurisdiction), if joining such parties would eliminate complete ...
Subject-matter jurisdiction, also called jurisdiction ratione materiae, [1] is a legal doctrine regarding the ability of a court to lawfully hear and adjudicate a case. Subject-matter relates to the nature of a case; whether it is criminal, civil, whether it is a state issue or a federal issue, and other substantive features of the case.
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 ...
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]
Concurrent jurisdiction in the United States can also exist between different levels of state courts, and between courts and other government agencies with judicial powers. Different countries can also share concurrent jurisdiction over a case, where different countries have authority over the parties or events giving rise to the cause of action.
Generally, removal jurisdiction exists only if, at the time plaintiff filed the action in state court, the federal court had a basis for exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over the action, such as diversity of citizenship of the parties or where plaintiff's action involves a claim under federal law. If removal is based solely on diversity ...
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 claim would be inconsistent with the diversity requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.