United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs

We are now done with arising under jurisdiction and diversity jurisdition. The next case concerns the following question: Suppose that at least one plaintiff asserts a theory of relief over which a federal district court has "original" jurisdiction, meaning either arising under or diversity. Suppose further that this plaintiff, or some other plaintiffs, want to assert in the same case theories of relief over which the federal district court does not have original jurisdiction. Under what circumstances may a district court exercise what we will call "supplemental" jurisdiction over these latter theories of relief?

Note that the case below refers to "pendant" and "ancillary" jurisdiction. We will not use these terms. The modern doctrine is called "supplemental" jurisdiction.

Supreme Court of the United States

383 U.S. 715, 16 L. Ed. 2d 218, 86 S. Ct. 1130, 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2837, SCDB 1965-082

No. 243

1966-03-28

This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.