Viewing the "Same Case or Controversy" of Supplemental Jurisdiction Through the Lens of the "Common Nucleus of Operative Fact" of Pendent Jurisdiction

Date

2012

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Texas Tech Law Review

Abstract

This Article plumbs the meaning and scope of same case or controversy under Article III in § 1367(a) by examining its lineal ancestor: pendent jurisdiction. It examines the major cases defining pendent jurisdiction. It examines the language of § 1367(a) and the intent of Congress in creating supplemental jurisdiction. It examines judicial interpretations of pendent jurisdiction. It employs this historical context to identify the attitude a court should have toward an assertion of supplemental jurisdiction. Finally, it proposes a sound approach for a court to follow in deciding the scope of supplemental jurisdiction in an individual case.

Description

Keywords

Creation of pendent jurisdiction, Hum v. Oursler, United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, Common nucleus of operative facts, Congress creates supplemental jurisdiction, Judicial interpretations of common nucleus of operative fact, Proper judicial attitude toward interpretation of case or controversy under Article III § 1367(a)., Historical guidance to interpretation

Citation

Douglas D. McFarlan, Viewing the "Same Case or Controversy" of Supplemental Jurisdiction Through the Lens of the "Common Nucleus of Operative Fact" of Pendent Jurisdiction, 45 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 905 (2012-2013)