Ad
related to: well-pleaded complaint rule frcp section
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Article III of the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear such cases, so long as the United States Congress passes a statute to that effect. However, when Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the newly created federal courts to hear such cases, it initially chose not to allow the lower federal courts to possess federal question jurisdiction for fear ...
That is, "arising under" for Article III purposes is broader than the well-pleaded complaint rule. It is well-established that Congress may grant lower federal courts less than the totality of Article III's possible federal question jurisdiction; for example, before 1980, federal question jurisdiction had an amount in controversy requirement ...
Pleading in United States Federal courts is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. According to Rule 7, only these pleadings are allowed: [1] A complaint; An answer to a complaint; An answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim; An answer to a crossclaim; A third-party complaint; An answer to a third-party complaint; and
federal question jurisdiction, the "well-pleaded complaint rule" North American Cold Storage Co. v. City of Chicago: 211 U.S. 306 (1908) Moyer v. Peabody: 212 U.S. 78 (1909) citizens' rights during insurrection Welch v. Swasey: 214 U.S. 91 (1909) Massachusetts' statute restricting building heights is constitutional Maryland v. West Virginia ...
Whether within the intent of Congress or not when adopting 28 USC 724 (1934), the situation was effectively reversed in 1938, [2] the year the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect. Federal courts are now required to apply the substantive law of the states as rules of decision in cases where state law is in question, including state ...
Plaintiff American Well Works Co. manufactured, sold, and held the patent to a particular type of pump, which was known to be the best on the market. The plaintiff sued defendant Layne & Bowler Co. on the grounds that defendant had maliciously libeled and slandered plaintiff's title to the pump by stating that the pump, and certain of its component parts, were infringements upon defendant's pump.
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.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that provided a basis for a broad reading of the "short and plain statement" requirement for pleading under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [1]