Law Commons^™

Practice And Procedure, R. Neal Batson, Ben F. Johnson Iii

Mercer Law Review

This article opened last year with a discussion of McGovern v. American Airlines, Inc. and the principle that it is the plaintiff's burden to allege and invoke federal jurisdiction. McGovern was undercut somewhat by the 1976 case of Skidmore v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc. Indeed, one dissenting judge argued that the Fifth Circuit was permitting jurisdiction even though the plaintiff had failed to make even a prima facie showing of essential jurisdictional facts. The plaintiff, a Texas citizen, brought a products-liability diversity action against one Delaware corporation and one Panamanian corporation. The plaintiff, even after substantial discovery, was unable to demonstrate …

Post-Judgment Garnishment Without Notice And A Hearing Is Constitutional, Robert L. Porter Jr.

Mercer Law Review

In Brown v. Liberty Loan Corp., the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that Florida's post-judgment garnishment statutes satisfy due process requirements even though they fail to provide the judgment debtor with notice and an opportunity for a hearing on his entitlement to a statutory wage exemption before wages are attached.

Amendments May Relate Back To Validate Service Of Process, Michael G. Gray

Mercer Law Review

Leniston v. Bonfiglio is worthy of inspection not only because of the proposition for which the case stands but also because of the manner in which the Georgia Court of Appeals chose to convey this proposition to the reader. Mrs. Alice Bonfiglio filed her complaint in the State Court of DeKalb County for $200 in damages to her automobile, allegedly precipitated by the negligence of defendant, Mrs. Leniston. Service of process was effectuated by a deputy marshal's tacking the summons to the door' of Mrs. Leniston's most notorious place of abode in DeKalb County, pursuant to C.P.A. § 4(d)(6).1 Contending …

Party Not Otherwise A Federal-Court Defendant May Not Be A 'Pendent Party' In A § 1983 Claim, Gary D. Simpson

Mercer Law Review

In Aldinger v. Howard, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a party not already in federal court under a federal claim may not be brought into federal court under a state claim, even though the plaintiff's state claim has a "common nucleus of operative fact" with the plaintiff's federal claim against another party. This limitation on "pendant party" jurisdiction, however, was restricted to state claims asserted to be "pendent" to 42 U.S.C.A. § 19832 and its jurisdictional corollary, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343(3).

Petitioner Aldinger had a civil-rights claim under § 1983 against Respondent Howard, the treasurer of Spokane County, …