Citation network
Finley Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 22, 1989
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
-
Finley v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 490 U.S. 545 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Finley v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989) Finley v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
jurisdiction under Mine Workers v. GibbsSearch
-
in a manner that does not reach defendants other than the United States. This Court's decision in Aldinger v. HowardSearch
-
made explicit the nontransferability of Gibbs to the context of pendent party jurisdiction. Aldinger, Zahn v. InternationalSearch
-
Paper Co., 414 U. S. 291 , and Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. KrogerSearch
-
b). That court summarily reversed on the basis of its earlier opinion in Ayala v. UnitedSearch
-
on whether the FTCA permits an assertion of pendent jurisdiction over additional parties. Compare, e.g., Ayala v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra, with Lykins v. PointerSearch
-
Inc., 725 F.2d 645 (CA11 1984), and Stewart v. UnitedSearch
-
Christianson v. ColtSearch
-
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. RisjordSearch
-
Kline v. BurkeSearch
-
litigating other matters properly before the court -- to the full extent permitted by the Constitution. Mine Workers v. GibbsSearch
-
Siler v. LouisvilleSearch
-
constitutional power has been congressionally authorized, and will not read jurisdictional statutes broadly. In Zahn v. InternationalSearch
-
under Gibbs, see Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. KrogerSearch
-
Two years later, the nontransferability of Gibbs to pendent party claims was made explicit. In Aldinger v. HowardSearch
-
claim was unavailable against the county because of this Court's decision in Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
We reaffirmed and further refined our approach to pendent party jurisdiction in Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. KrogerSearch
-
an additional party has a claim upon contested assets within the court's exclusive control, see, e.g., Krippendorf v. HydeSearch
-
U. S. 460 (1861), or when necessary to give effect to the court's judgment, see, e.g., Local Loan Co. v. HuntSearch
-
Julian v. CentralSearch
-
a)(2), 1491(a)(1)), cannot include private defendants. United States v. SherwoodSearch
-
Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. ClevelandSearch
-
Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. SheetsSearch
-
Anderson v. PacificSearch
-
United States v. RyderSearch
-
Fourco Glass Co. v. TransmirraSearch
-
Tidewater Oil Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
STEVENS is thus mistaken to rely upon, post at 490 U. S. 559 -560, n. 6, this Court's decision in Moore v. NewSearch
-
was later overruled by Monell v. NewSearch
-
This Court's decision in Dewey v. WestSearch
-
jurisdiction, citing Krippendorf v. HydeSearch
-
JUSTICE STEVENS would distinguish Kroger (and Zahn v. InternationalSearch
-
Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 82. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, dissenting. If Aldinger v. HowardSearch
-
expression of congressional intent to exclude private defendants from federal tort claims litigation. United States v. SherwoodSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial