28 U.S.C. § 1367
Supplemental jurisdiction
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (b), are set out in the Appendix to this title.
Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 310(c),
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34,624
cases (16,630 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. (2005)
“Our decision turns on the correct interpretation of 28 U. S. C. § 1367 . The question has divided the Courts of Appeals, and we granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.”
Rafael Arroyo, Jr. v. Carmen Rosas (2021)
“The panel held that the district court abused its discretion in nonetheless declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(4), which permits a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if,…”
F5 Capital v. Pappas (2017)
“§ 1332 (d), and supplemental jurisdiction over the non-class, state law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a). F5 did not contest removal.”
Louise Rosmer, on Behalf of Herself and as Class Representative v. Pfizer Incorporated (2001)
“OPINION WILKINSON, Chief Judge: This case turns on one discrete question of statutory interpretation — whether 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (1994) permits federal courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in a diversity class action when one named plaintiff has a claim above the…”
Schutza v. Cuddeback (2017)
“for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 . Plaintiff has not opposed.”
City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons (1997)
“The statute provides, "in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of…”
Wong v. Minnesota Department of Human Services (2016)
“” 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a). Here, the district court determined that the appeal from the Commissioner’s decision arose from the “same set of facts” as Wong’s ADA and RA claims.”
Clarence Enochs v. Lampasas County (2011)
“§ 1331 , and supplemental jurisdiction over the Texas state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a). Enochs contends, however, that the district court abused its discretion in failing to relinquish jurisdiction over the pendent Texas state law claims once it had permitted…”
Kathleen A. Shanaghan v. John D. Cahill Cahill & Associates, Incorporated (1995)
“The basis for district court discretion in this context lies in the model of supplemental jurisdiction set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367 . The doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction indicates that federal courts generally have discretion to retain or dismiss state law claims when the…”
Artis v. District of Columbia (2018)
“28 U. S. C. §1367 (a). When a district court dismisses all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it ordinarily also dismisses all related state claims.”
Fadwa Safar v. Lisa Tingle (2017)
“But it is equally true that no Virginia case stands for the proposition that no such cause of action exists.”
Raygor v. Regents of the University of Minnesota (2000)
“Respondent also argued that the tolling provision of the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1367 , did not apply to toll the limitations period on the state law claims while they were pending in federal court because the Federal District Court never had…”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) — 84 cases
AG Funds, L.P. v. Sanofi (2015)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) — 5 cases
Hoffman v. Connecticut (2009)
Miller v. Scari (1996)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b)(3) — 1 case
— 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) — 448 cases
Schutza v. Cuddeback (2017)
“for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 . Plaintiff has not opposed.”
Clarence Enochs v. Lampasas County (2011)
“§ 1331 , and supplemental jurisdiction over the Texas state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a). Enochs contends, however, that the district court abused its discretion in failing to relinquish jurisdiction over the pendent Texas state law claims once it had permitted…”
Young v. City of Albuquerque (2014)
Archuleta v. City of Roswell (2012)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) — 9 cases
TZ Manor, LLC v. Daines (2011)
Molski v. Kahn Winery (2005)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) — 6 cases
Dalfio v. SECVD & I, Inc. (2021)
Rosa v. Dhillon (2020)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) — 112 cases
Ricci v. DeStefano (2008)
Ricci v. DeStefano (2006)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) — 3 cases
Dalfio v. SECVD & I, Inc. (2021)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) — 12 cases
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.