Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

pendent party jurisdiction

Read a random definition: conventional obligation

A quick definition of pendent party jurisdiction:

Pendent party jurisdiction is when a federal court has the power to decide not only the federal question involved but also any other questions – whether federal or state in nature – that must be resolved in order to decide the claim. This means that if there is any claim over which a federal court has an independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, the court can also decide related state law claims. The court can only do this if the state and federal claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and it is significantly more efficient to try the claims together due to common facts. The court has the discretion to decline to exercise this authority in certain circumstances.

A more thorough explanation:

Pendent party jurisdiction is a legal term that refers to a type of supplemental jurisdiction. It means that if a federal court has jurisdiction over a claim, it can also decide any other related questions, whether they are federal or state law. This is important because it allows all related legal issues to be resolved in one case, making the process more efficient.

For example, if someone sues a company for violating a federal law, and also has a state law claim against the same company, the federal court can hear both claims together. This is because they arise from the same set of facts, and it would be more efficient to resolve them together.

The idea of pendent party jurisdiction was first established in a 1933 case called Hurn v. Oursler. The Supreme Court later refined the doctrine in a 1966 case called United Mine Workers v. Gibbs. Congress later codified the doctrine in 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

pendent jurisdiction | Pendente lite

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.