Supplemental jurisdiction is the authority of a federal court to hear additional claims substantially related to the original claim, even though the court would lack subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the additional claims independently. 28 U.S.C. §1367 is a codification of the Supreme Court's rulings on ancillary jurisdiction and pendent jurisdiction, and a superseding of the Court's treatment of pendent party jurisdiction.
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdfs:label
| - Supplemental jurisdiction
|
| rdfs:comment
| - Supplemental jurisdiction is the authority of a federal court to hear additional claims substantially related to the original claim, even though the court would lack subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the additional claims independently. 28 U.S.C. §1367 is a codification of the Supreme Court's rulings on ancillary jurisdiction and pendent jurisdiction, and a superseding of the Court's treatment of pendent party jurisdiction.
|
| sameAs
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| dbkwik:itlaw/prope...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
| abstract
| - Supplemental jurisdiction is the authority of a federal court to hear additional claims substantially related to the original claim, even though the court would lack subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the additional claims independently. 28 U.S.C. §1367 is a codification of the Supreme Court's rulings on ancillary jurisdiction and pendent jurisdiction, and a superseding of the Court's treatment of pendent party jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C 1367(a) provides that courts can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over "all other claims that are so related . . . that they form part of the same case or controversy." This means a federal court hearing a federal claim can also hear substantially related state law claims, thereby encouraging efficiency by only having one trial at the federal level rather than one trial in federal court and another in state court. In United Mine Workers v Gibbs, the court articulated that "whenever there is a claim arising under federal law, and the relationship between that claim and the state claim permits the reasonable conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but one constitutional case" then the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court stated that the federal claim must have substance sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court. The state and federal claims must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. However, 28 U.S.C. 1467(b) states that if the case is brought as a diversity action (i.e., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332), there generally is no supplemental jurisdiction if such claims would destroy complete diversity. The purpose of it is to preserve the complete diversity rule that has been established in Strawbridge v Curtiss. Courts have complete discretion as to whether or not the will embrace supplemental jurisdiction in specified or exceptional circumstances.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)