Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 ...
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 ...
If a case is originally filed in a state court, and the requirements for federal jurisdiction are met (diversity and amount in controversy, the case involves a federal question, or a supplemental jurisdiction exists), the defendant (and only the defendant) may remove the case to a federal court. A case cannot be removed to a state court.
e. In the United States, removal jurisdiction allows a defendant to move a civil action or criminal case filed in a state court to the United States district court in the federal judicial district in which the state court is located. A federal statute governs removal. Generally, removal jurisdiction exists only if, at the time plaintiff filed ...
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 ...
28 U.S.C. § 1332, § 1367. 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 ...
28 U.S.C. § 1367. Finley v. 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] In response to the Finley decision, the United States Congress enacted a new statute on supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
The 5–4 decision in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005), held that a federal court has supplemental jurisdiction over claims of other plaintiffs who do not meet the jurisdictional amount for a diversity action, when at least one plaintiff in the action does satisfy the jurisdictional amount.