enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Mobil_Corp._v...

    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.

  3. Supplemental jurisdiction - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_jurisdiction

    The holding in Gibbs has been essentially codified by Congress along with ancillary jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1367, its supplemental jurisdiction statute. However, Subsection §1367(c)(3) expressly authorizes the district court to dismiss a supplemental claim when the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original ...

  4. Finley v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finley_v._United_States

    28 u.s.c. § 1367 United States , 490 U.S. 545 ( 1989 ), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the jurisdictional requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). [ 1 ]

  5. Pendent party jurisdiction - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendent_party_jurisdiction

    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 ...

  6. Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Equipment_&_Erection...

    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 ...

  7. How some people escape the steep Medicare surcharge on ...

    www.aol.com/finance/people-escape-steep-medicare...

    Most people on Medicare will pay about $2,100 in Part B premiums this year. But high-income beneficiaries will get socked owing as much as $6,708 instead, due to the surcharge they’ll pay known ...

  8. 3 big changes coming to Medicare in 2025—and what they’ll ...

    www.aol.com/finance/3-big-changes-coming...

    But a February 2024 Commonwealth Fund study discovered that three in 10 Medicare Advantage members didn’t use any of their supplemental benefits in the past year. And CMS’ statement about its ...

  9. Federal Tort Claims Act - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act

    The Federal Tort Claims Act (August 2, 1946, ch. 646, Title IV, 60 Stat. 812, 28 U.S.C. Part VI, Chapter 171 and 28 U.S.C. § 1346) ("FTCA") is a 1946 federal statute that permits private parties to sue the United States in a federal court for most torts committed by persons acting on behalf of the United States.