Citation network
Aldinger Vs. Howard
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 24, 1976
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 1 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Aldinger v. HowardSearch
-
U.S. 1 (1976) Aldinger v. HowardSearch
-
giving rise to the dispute between the parties to the federal claim. Mine Workers v. GibbsSearch
-
alluded to but not answered in Moor v CountySearch
-
of Alameda, 411 U. S. 693 , 411 U. S. 715 (1973), and Philbrook v. GlodgettSearch
-
jurisdiction, as obviously foreclosed by this Court's decisions in Moor, supra, and City of Kenosha v. BrunoSearch
-
under the second part of the rule enunciated in Mine Workers v. GibbsSearch
-
apply pendent jurisdiction over a nonfederal party, the instant panel felt free to apply that rule as set out in Hymer v. ChaiSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
F.2d 136 (CA9 1969), and Moor v. MadiganSearch
-
and the actual contours of the cases and controversies to which that power is extended by Art. III. In Osborn v. BankSearch
-
Id. at 22 U. S. 822 -823. This doctrine was later applied in Siler v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Id. at 213 U. S. 191 . In Moore v. N.YSearch
-
failure to state a claim, and the former had no independent federal jurisdictional basis. A few years later, in Hurn v. OurslerSearch
-
were reversed), this Court addressed the argument that, under the rule of pendent jurisdiction as set out in Hurn v. OurslerSearch
-
the joining of parties with respect to whom there was no independent basis of federal jurisdiction. In Freeman v. HoweSearch
-
irrespective of diversity of citizenship. Id. at 65 U. S. 460 . A similar approach was taken in Stewart v. DunhamSearch
-
Id. at 115 U. S. 64 . Dunham was, in turn, held controlling in Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. CaubleSearch
-
As this Court stated in Fulton Bank v. HozierSearch
-
think there is much sense in the observation of Judge Sobeloff, writing for the Court of Appeals in Kenrose Mfg. Co. v. FredSearch
-
See, e.g., cases cited in Moor v. CountySearch
-
with property in the control of the federal court, the notion of ancillary jurisdiction put forward in Freeman v. HoweSearch
-
Hipp v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 313 F.Supp. 1152 (EDNY 1970). Contra, Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL and MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, dissenting. Mine Workers v. GibbsSearch
-
Schulman v. HuckSearch
-
the Court of Appeals reaffirmed, 472 F.2d at 867, an earlier decision of that court by my Brother BLACKMUN, Hatridge v. AetnaSearch
-
Moor v. CountySearch
-
units where such jurisdiction would otherwise lie under application of standard principles. Our precedents, Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
U. S. 167 (1961), and Moor v. CountySearch
-
liability as not encompassing local governmental units. Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
Moor v. CountySearch
-
Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 804 (1871) (emphasis supplied). See Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
n the first place, I wish to remark that the decisions that have been referred to, those of Knox vs. LeeSearch
-
in Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
id. at 193 (Harlan, J., concurring). Review of that same legislative history in Mitchum v. FosterSearch
-
been the holding of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a series of opinions by Judge Friendly. Almenares v. WymanSearch
-
Leather's Best, Inc. v. S.SSearch
-
Astor-Honor, Inc. v. GrossetSearch
-
United States v. Heyward-RobinsonSearch
-
Note, UMW v. GibbsSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Aldinger v. HowardSearch
-
Mine Workers v. GibbsSearch
-
and Philbrook v. GlodgettSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial