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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
Tureen also feared that a federal court would find that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction for an ejectment action due to the well-pleaded complaint rule, although the Supreme Court held otherwise in Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida (1974)—decided three years after the Passamaquoddy complaint was filed. [34]
In 1938, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted. One goal of these rules was to relax the strict rules of code pleading. [2] The focus of the cause of action was shifted to discovery (another goal of the FRCP). [2] Under the Federal Rules, a plaintiff's complaint merely needs to contain a short and plain statement of their cause of ...
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 ...
While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Our decision in Twombly illustrates the two-pronged approach.
For example, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) that govern civil litigation in United States courts provide that a civil action is commenced with the filing or service of a pleading called a complaint. Civil court rules in states that have incorporated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure use the same term for the same pleading. In ...