18 U.S.C. § 1367
Interference with the operation of a satellite
Section effective 90 days after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 77
cases (29 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Saldana v. State
Saldana v. State (1993)
“Any pen register or trap and trace device order or installation which would be valid and lawful without regard to the amendments made by this title [adding 18 USCS §§ 1367 and 3121 et seq.] shall be valid and lawful notwithstanding such amendments if such order or installation…”
Global Naps, Inc. v. Verizon New England Inc. (2010)
“” It gives federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over all claims that are part of the same Article III case or controversy: Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil *87 action of which the district…”
Coalition for the Abolition of Marijuana Prohibition v. City of Atlanta (2000)
“1994) (remanding for the district court to consider, in the first instance, whether it had to discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 1367 (c) not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims).”
Onepoint Solutions, Llc, a Georgia Limited Liability Company v. Michael Borchert William Catuzzi (2007)
“As a result, the district court has supplemental jurisdiction over all of OnePoint’s other claims against Borchert and Catuzzi that are “so related to” the § 604.”
Hansen v. Board of Trustees of Hamilton Southeastern School Corp. (2008)
“” See 18 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3). Indeed, even if the Hansens had not brought a single federal claim against the school district, the district court would have had supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims against HSSC because they constituted the same “case or controversy”…”
Julie Olden, Richard Hunter, Wilbur Bleau, and All Others Similarly Situated v. Lafarge Corp. (2004)
“Because we find that 18 U.S.C. § 1367 achieves its intended purpose without any absurd result and because we find that its *507 statutory language is unambiguous, we hold today that Zahn has been overruled.”
Mireles v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2012)
“§ 1367 (c) identifies four reasons why a district court may choose to decline supplemental jurisdiction: "(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original…”
Cox Communications PCS, L.P. v. City of San Marcos (2002)
“Legislative history is sparse. If the Court were to exercise jurisdiction, it would have to interpret important state statutes and resolve difficult and novel issues of state law for the first time.”
MacH v. TRIPLE D SUPPLY, LLC (2011)
“18 U.S.C. § 1367 (a). Because Great American asserts “that this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the ■wrongful death claims brought by the Mach Plaintiffs,” Response to Mach Plaintiffs at 8, Great American recognizes that the Cross-Claims are “so related to…”
Walker v. THI of New Mexico at Hobbs Center (2011)
“In 1990 Congress enacted a supplemental jurisdiction statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1367 . The statute does not use the terminology of “permissive” or “compulsory.”
D'ANTUONO v. Service Road Corp. (2011)
“§ 1331 , and subject-matter jurisdiction over the state law claims in that Complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1367 (a). While the FAA may require the Court to enforce the disputed arbitration agreement as a matter of contract, see 9 U.”
Carroll v. City of Albuquerque (2010)
“18 U.S.C. § 1367 (a). A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that forms part of the same case or controversy if: (i) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law; (ii) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.