1. A claim that is collateral to, dependent on, or auxiliary to another claim, such as a state-law claim that is sufficiently related to a federal claim to permit federal jurisdiction over it. * The concept of ancillary federal jurisdiction is now contained in the supplemental-jurisdiction statute, 28 USCA § 1367. See ancillary jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction.
1. A court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate claims and proceedings related to a claim that is properly before the court. For example, if a plaintiff brings a lawsuit in federal court based on a federal question (such as a claim under Title VII), the defendant may assert a counterclaim over which the court would not otherwise have jurisdiction (such as a state-law claim of stealing company property). The concept of ancillary jurisdiction has now been codified, along with the concept of pendent jurisdiction, in the supplemental-jurisdiction statute. 28 USCA § 1367.
1. Jurisdiction over a damn that is part of the same case or Controversy as another claim over which the court has original jurisdiction. * Since 1990, federal district courts have had supplemental jurisdiction which includes jurisdiction over both ancillary and pendent claims. 28 USCA § 1367.
1. A court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim over which it would not otherwise have jurisdiction, because the claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as another claim that is properly before the court. * For example, if a plaintiff brings suit in federal court claiming that the defendant, in one transaction, violated both a federal and a state law, the federal court has jurisdiction over the federal claim (under federal-question jurisdiction) and also has jurisdiction over the state claim that is pendent to the federal claim. Pendent jurisdiction has now been codified as supplemental jurisdiction. 28 USCA § 1367. — aka pendent-claim jurisdiction.
1. A court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim against a party who is not otherwise subject to the court’s jurisdiction, because the claim by or against that party arises from the same transaction or occurrence as another claim that is properly before the court. 0 Pendent-party jurisdiction has been a hotly debated subject, and was severely limited by the U.S. Supreme Court in Finley v. U.S., 490 U.S. 545, 109 S.Ct. 2003 (1990). The concept is now codified in the supplemental-jurisdiction statute, and it applies to federal-question cases but not to diversity jurisdiction cases. 28 USCA § 1367. Neither pendent party jurisdiction nor supplemental jurisdiction may be used to circumvent the complete-diversity requirement in cases founded on diversity jurisdiction. 
Disclaimer: All material throughout this website is pertinent to people everywhere, and is being utilized in accordance with Fair Use.
Back to Types of Claims
Like this website?
or donate via PayPal:
This website is being broadcast for First Amendment purposes courtesy of
Like to offer financial support?
We look forward to hearing from you!