User:Manumitany/training sandbox
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. | |
---|---|
Argued March 1, 2005 Decided June 23, 2005 | |
Full case name | Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. |
Citations | 545 U.S. 546 (more) |
Holding | |
28 USCA §1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over joined claims that do not individually meet the amount-in-controversy requirements of §1332, provided that at least one claim meets the amount-in-controversy requirements. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kennedy |
Dissent | Stevens, joined by Breyer |
Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Breyer |
Laws applied | |
28 USC §1332, 28 USC §1367 |
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that 28 USCA §1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over joined claims that do not individually meet the amount-in-controversy requirements of §1332, provided that at least one claim meets the amount-in-controversy requirements.
Background
Federal Courts are courts of limited
In order to limit the number of cases in federal court, both of these forms of jurisdiction once required that the amount of money, or equivalent monetary value in the case of non-monetary relief, must reach a certain threshold. These requirements were called amount-in-controversy requirements, and at the time of Exxon, only diversity jurisdiction cases retained such requirements.
Simple grants of jurisdiction over plaintiffs' original claims under §1331 and §1332 would present problems for the efficient adjudication of disputes; a federal court may not have subject-matter jurisdiction over potential counter-claims by defendants, or other claims such as impleader and cross-claims. Without jurisdiction for these claims, proceedings between parties could be unnecessarily and inefficiently split between federal and state courts. Two types of additional jurisdiction developed to address this issue via judicial interpretation:
The Exxon case was a combination of several
Opinion of the Court
References
Category:2005 in law Category:United States Supreme Court cases