|
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. is a codification of the Supreme Court's rulings on ancillary jurisdiction ('' Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger'', ) and pendent jurisdiction ('' United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs'', ) and a superseding of the Court's treatment of pendent party jurisdiction (''Finley v. United States'', ). Historically there was a distinction between pendent jurisdiction and ancillary jurisdiction. But, under the ruling in ''Exxon'', that distinction is no longer meaningful. Supplemental jurisdiction refers to the various ways a federal court may hear either: state law claims, claims from parties who lack the amount in controversy requirement of diversity jur ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
United States Federal Court
The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. The U.S. federal judiciary consists primarily of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts. It also includes a variety of other lesser federal tribunals. Article III of the Constitution requires the establishment of a Supreme Court and permits the Congress to create other federal courts and place limitations on their jurisdiction. Article III states that federal judges are appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate to serve until they resign, are impeached and convicted, or die. Courts All federal courts can be readily identified by the words "United States" (abbreviated to "U.S.") in their official names; no state court may include this designation as part of its name. The federal courts are generally divided between trial ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Federal-question Jurisdiction
In United States law, federal question jurisdiction is a type of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives United States federal courts the power to hear Civil law (common law), civil cases where the plaintiff alleges a violation of the United States Constitution, law of the United States, federal law, or a treaty to which the United States is a party. The federal question jurisdiction statute is codified at . Statute Overview Article III of the Constitution of the United States, 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 it would make the courts too powerful. The Federalist Party (United States), Federalists briefly created such j ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
United States Code
In the law of the United States, the Code of Laws of the United States of America (variously abbreviated to Code of Laws of the United States, United States Code, U.S. Code, U.S.C., or USC) is the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal statutes. It contains 53 titles (Titles 1–54, excepting Title 53, which is reserved for a proposed title on small business). The main edition is published every six years by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives, and cumulative supplements are published annually.About United States Code Gpo.gov. Retrieved on 2013-07-19. The official version of these laws appears in the '' |
Impleader
Impleader is a United States civil court procedural device before trial in which a defendant joins a third party into a lawsuit because that third party is liable to an original defendant. Using the vocabulary of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendant seeks to become a third-party plaintiff by filing a third party complaint against a third party not presently party to the lawsuit, who thereby becomes a third-party defendant. This complaint alleges that the third party is liable for all or part of the damages that the original plaintiff may win from the original defendant. The theory is that two cases may be decided together and justice may be done more efficiently than by having two suits in a series. Otherwise, more judicial time would be used in hearing the second suit. Common bases of contingent or derivative liability by which third parties may be impleaded include indemnity, subrogation, contribution, and warranty. For example, in a case where a driver rea ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Intervention (law)
In law, intervention is a procedure to allow a nonparty, called intervenor (also spelled intervener) to join ongoing litigation, either as a matter of right or at the discretion of the court, without the permission of the original litigants. The basic rationale for intervention is that a judgment in a particular case may affect the rights of nonparties, who ideally should have the right to be heard. Canada Intervenors are most common in appellate proceedings but can also appear at other types of legal proceeding such as a trial. In general, it is within the discretion of the court to allow or refuse an application to intervene. There are exceptions to that, however. For example, under subrule 61(4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, if the court has stated a constitutional question, the attorney general of any province or territory or of the federal government, may intervene "as of right," without the need to be granted leave to intervene. Courts will tend to allow ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Interpleader
Interpleader is a civil procedure device that allows a plaintiff or a defendant to initiate a lawsuit in order to compel two or more other parties to litigate a dispute. An interpleader action originates when the plaintiff holds property on behalf of another, but does not know to whom the property should be transferred. It is often used to resolve disputes arising under insurance contracts. Terminology and overview In an interpleader action, the party initiating the litigation, normally the plaintiff, is termed the ''Stakeholder (law), stakeholder''. The money or other property in controversy is called the ''res'' (a Latin word meaning object or thing). All defendants having a possible interest in the subject matter of the case are called ''claimants''. In some jurisdictions, the plaintiff is referred to as the ''plaintiff-in-interpleader'' and each claimant a ''claimant-in-interpleader''. An interpleader proceeding has two stages. The first stage determines if the stakeholder i ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Impleader
Impleader is a United States civil court procedural device before trial in which a defendant joins a third party into a lawsuit because that third party is liable to an original defendant. Using the vocabulary of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendant seeks to become a third-party plaintiff by filing a third party complaint against a third party not presently party to the lawsuit, who thereby becomes a third-party defendant. This complaint alleges that the third party is liable for all or part of the damages that the original plaintiff may win from the original defendant. The theory is that two cases may be decided together and justice may be done more efficiently than by having two suits in a series. Otherwise, more judicial time would be used in hearing the second suit. Common bases of contingent or derivative liability by which third parties may be impleaded include indemnity, subrogation, contribution, and warranty. For example, in a case where a driver rea ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Cross-claim
A crossclaim is a claim asserted between codefendants or coplaintiffs in a case and that relates to the subject of the original claim or counterclaim according to ''Black's Law Dictionary''. A cross claim is filed against someone who is a co-defendant or co-plaintiff to the party who originates the crossclaim. In common law, a crossclaim is a demand made in a pleading that is filed against a party which is on the "same side" of the lawsuit. U.S. federal courts In the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure this is codified iRule 13(g) In the federal rules, a crossclaim is proper if it relates to a matter of the original jurisdiction. Proper jurisdiction is determined by a finding of whether the suit that is being initiated arises from the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the suit. Crossclaims, like joinder In law, a joinder is the joining of two or more legal issues together. Procedurally, a joinder allows multiple issues to be heard in one hearing or t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (officially abbreviated Fed. R. Civ. P.; colloquially FRCP) govern civil procedure in United States district courts. The FRCP are promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, and then the United States Congress has seven months to veto the rules promulgated or they become part of the FRCP. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy-making body. Although federal courts are required to apply the substantive law of the states as rules of decision in cases where state law is in question, the federal courts almost always use the FRCP as their rules of civil procedure. States may determine their own rules, which apply in state courts, although 35 of the 50 states have adopted rules that are based on the FRCP. History The Rules, established in 1938, replaced the earlier procedures und ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Counterclaim
In a court of law, a party's claim is a counterclaim if one party asserts claims in response to the claims of another. In other words, if a plaintiff initiates a lawsuit and a defendant responds to the lawsuit with claims of their own against the plaintiff, the defendant’s claims are “counterclaims.” Examples of counterclaims include: * After a bank has sued a customer for an unpaid debt, the customer counterclaims (sues back) against the bank for fraud in procuring the debt. The court will sort out the different claims in one lawsuit (unless the claims are severed). * Two cars collide. After one person sues for damage to his/her car and personal injuries, the defendant counterclaims for similar property damage and personal injury claims. United States In U.S. federal courts, counterclaims can arise on various occasions, including e.g.: *an attempt by the defendant to offset or reduce the amount/implications of the plaintiff's claim; *a different claim by the defendant ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judicial Economy
Judicial economy or procedural economy is the principle that the limited resources of the legal system or a given court should be conserved by the refusal to decide one or more claims raised in a case. For example, the plaintiff may claim that the defendant's actions violated three distinct laws. Having found for the plaintiff for a violation of the first law, the court then has the discretion to exercise judicial economy and refuse to make a decision on the remaining two claims, on the grounds that the finding of one violation should be sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff. Threshold issue in a given case In the presence of a threshold issue that will ultimately decide a case, a court may, depending on the degree of prejudice to the litigants rights, elect to hear that issue rather than proceeding with a full-blown trial. Class action lawsuits Class action lawsuits are another example of judicial economy in action, as they are often tried as a single case, yet involve many cases ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Subject-matter Jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction (also called jurisdiction ''ratione materiae')'' is the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter. For instance, bankruptcy court only has the authority to hear bankruptcy cases. Subject-matter jurisdiction must be distinguished from personal jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to render a judgment against a particular defendant, and territorial jurisdiction, which is the power of the court to render a judgment concerning events that have occurred within a well-defined territory. Unlike personal or territorial jurisdiction, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. A judgment from a court that did not have subject-matter jurisdiction is forever a nullity. To decide a case, a court must have a combination of subject (''subjectam'') and either personal (''personam'') or territorial (''locum'') jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction, personal or territorial jurisdictio ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
