Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
Pendant Party Jurisdiction And Section 1983: When Has Congress "By Implication Negated" Jurisdiction?, Peter E. Schomer
Pendant Party Jurisdiction And Section 1983: When Has Congress "By Implication Negated" Jurisdiction?, Peter E. Schomer
Fordham Urban Law Journal
This Note discusses how many lower federal courts, in deciding when to allow state claims to be brought in federal court under the doctrine of pendant party jurisdiction, have interpreted the Supreme Court's "Aldinger test" in a far more restrictive manner than what the Supreme Court had intended. Additionally, the Note traces the history of the doctrines of pendant jurisdiction, pendant party jurisdiction and ancillary jurisdiction. The Note also discusses of the dispute raging about the actual validity of pendant party jurisdiction, ,focusing particularly on section 1983 cases. In conclusion, the Note articulates the process and analysis a court must …
For Every Weapon, A Counterweapon: The Revival Of Rule 68, John P. Woods
For Every Weapon, A Counterweapon: The Revival Of Rule 68, John P. Woods
Fordham Urban Law Journal
Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies generally where a non-moving party's settlement offer is rejected, and the court judgment awarded to the moving party, or claimant, is for less than the prior offer. The non-moving party may then be entitled to "costs incurred after the making of the offer." In Marek v. Chesny, the Court made it clear that "costs" includes attorney's fees. Congress should consider revising Rule 68 to clarify its application. However, Rule 68 appropriately induces plaintiffs to thoroughly consider a defendant's offer, under threat that rejection of the offer may include reducing attorney's …