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.
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]
A crossclaim is a claim asserted between codefendants or coplaintiffs in a case and that relates to the subject of the original claim or counterclaim according to Black's Law Dictionary. A crossclaim is filed against someone who is a co-defendant or co-plaintiff to the party who originates the crossclaim.
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]
Case history; Prior: 558 F.2d 417 (8th Cir. 1977) (upholding verdict for plaintiff); cert. granted, 434 U.S. 1008 (1978).: Subsequent: Codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b): Holding; The court did not have ancillary jurisdiction to hear respondent's new claim that would defeat complete diversity because the new claim was not sufficiently related to the original claim and the plaintiff chose to ...
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 ...
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the United States does not have a general federal common law and that U.S. federal courts must apply state law, not federal law, to lawsuits between parties from different states that do not involve federal questions.