enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Supplemental jurisdiction - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_jurisdiction

    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.

  3. 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 ...

  4. United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Mine_Workers_of...

    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]

  5. Erie doctrine - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_doctrine

    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 ...

  6. 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.

  7. Women are being notified that they need to take action if ...

    www.aol.com/women-being-notified-action-dense...

    In New York State, Litvack found champions in the legislature to push forward a bill enhancing insurance coverage for supplemental breast cancer screening for those with New York State health plans.

  8. Finley v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finley_v._United_States

    Later, Finley amended her federal complaint to re-assert her claims against the state-court defendants. There was no independent basis for jurisdiction over those parties. [1] The District Court granted Finley's motion based on a supplemental jurisdiction theory like that of United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs. The Supreme Court granted ...

  9. Republican rep offers bill to amend Washington's 'mature ...

    www.aol.com/republican-rep-offers-bill-amend...

    (The Center Square) – In March 20024, the Washington State Legislature passed Initiative 2081, the parents’ bill of rights, which took effect on June 6 of that same year. Under I-2081, parents ...