2001Duke Law JournalRequires access

Would the Kroger Rule Survive the ALI's Proposed Revision of [section] 1367?

Edward A. Hartnett

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Supplemental jurisdiction has been a treacherous area over the past decade. Previously, supplemental jurisdiction—then generally called pendent or ancillary jurisdiction—had been left nearly entirely to judicial development, but in 1989 the Supreme Court criticized several of its own prior cases for failing to make a “specific examination of jurisdictional statutes” to determine whether Congress had authorized the exercise of jurisdiction. Although the Court stated that it had “no intent to limit or impair” these already established cases, it declared that it would not extend them. It acknowledged that “the scope of jurisdiction conferred by a particular statute can of course be changed by Congress,” but in an effort to enable Congress “to legislate against a background of clear interpretive rules,” the Court declared “that a grant of jurisdiction over claims involving particular parties does not itself confer jurisdiction over additional claims by or against different parties.” The next year, Congress acted quickly to fill the gap in federal jurisdiction that the Supreme Court had just revealed (or created).

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Supplemental jurisdiction has been a treacherous area over the past decade. Previously, supplemental jurisdiction—then generally called pendent or ancillary jurisdiction—had been left nearly entirely to judicial development, but in 1989 the Supreme Court criticized several of its own prior cases for failing to make a “specific examination of jurisdictional statutes” to determine whether Congress had authorized the exercise of jurisdiction. Although the Court stated that it had “no intent to limit or impair” these already established cases, it declared that it would not extend them. It acknowledged that “the scope of jurisdiction conferred by a particular statute can of course be changed by Congress,” but in an effort to enable Congress “to legislate against a background of clear interpretive rules,” the Court declared “that a grant of jurisdiction over claims involving particular parties does not itself confer jurisdiction over additional claims by or against different parties.” The next year, Congress acted quickly to fill the gap in federal jurisdiction that the Supreme Court had just revealed (or created).

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Supplemental jurisdiction has been a treacherous area over the past decade. Previously, supplemental jurisdiction—then generally called pendent or ancillary jurisdiction—had been left nearly entirely to judicial development, but in 1989 the Supreme Court criticized several of its own prior cases for failing to make a “specific examination of jurisdictional statutes” to determine whether Congress had authorized the exercise of jurisdiction. Although the Court stated that it had “no intent to limit or impair” these already established cases, it declared that it would not extend them. It acknowledged that “the scope of jurisdiction conferred by a particular statute can of course be changed by Congress,” but in an effort to enable Congress “to legislate against a background of clear interpretive rules,” the Court declared “that a grant of jurisdiction over claims involving particular parties does not itself confer jurisdiction over additional claims by or against different parties.” The next year, Congress acted quickly to fill the gap in federal jurisdiction that the Supreme Court had just revealed (or created).

Key concepts: Section (typography), Political science, Law, Law and economics, Economics, Computer science, Operating system

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Would the Kroger Rule Survive the ALI's Proposed Revision of [section] 1367? — Research Paper | ScholarLens