Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- File Type
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Viewing The "Same Case Or Controversy" Of Supplemental Jurisdiction Through The Lens Of The "Common Nucleus Of Operative Fact" Of Pendent Jurisdiction, Douglas D. Mcfarland
Viewing The "Same Case Or Controversy" Of Supplemental Jurisdiction Through The Lens Of The "Common Nucleus Of Operative Fact" Of Pendent Jurisdiction, Douglas D. Mcfarland
Douglas D. McFarland
When a federal court has jurisdiction of a claim, supplemental jurisdiction of § 1367(a) allows the court to adjudicate all parts “of the same case or controversy under Article III.” This article argues that the best way to interpret that phrase is by examining the meaning of “common nucleus of operative fact,” the test for its ancestor pendent jurisdiction. Through that lens, “same case or controversy” means the broad grouping of facts, without regard to legal theories or categories, that a lay person would expect to be tried together. And in limning the boundaries of that grouping of facts, the …
Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Permissive Counterclaims: A Misconception, Douglas D. Mcfarland
Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Permissive Counterclaims: A Misconception, Douglas D. Mcfarland
Douglas D. McFarland
This article examines the rapidly growing line of precedent in federal courts that supplemental jurisdiction can exist over a permissive counterclaim. The line springs from two decisions baldly asserting the “case or controversy under Article III” test of § 1367(a) for supplemental jurisdiction requires only a “loose factual connection” of the facts, and so is broader than the “transaction or occurrence” test that limned both ancillary jurisdiction and the compulsory counterclaim rule prior to Congress’ intervention into this settled area of law in 1990. Later cases in the line of precedent simply cite the two founding cases without attempting any …