1 / 4

Finley v. US

The case of Finley v. US reshapes the landscape of supplemental jurisdiction in legal claims. It raises critical questions about original and supplemental claims, particularly under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). This analysis examines the implications of Finley on jurisdictional standards, especially concerning claims against electric companies and municipalities. We explore why certain supplemental claims may not pass the Gibbs test and assess the impact of Finley's new statutory and constitutional interpretations. Ultimately, we clarify the limits of pendent party jurisdiction in light of express and implied statutes.

gizela
Télécharger la présentation

Finley v. US

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Finley v. US

  2. Finley: Structure of Lawsuit • Original Claim? • P v. US (FTCA – Exclusive) • Supplemental Claims? • P v. Electric Company (Wires) • P v. City (Runway Lights) • Does it pass Gibbs? • Then why is there no supplemental jurisdiction?

  3. What did Finley Change? Statute (Implied) Constitution (Gibbs) Statute (Express) Discretion

  4. Finley’s New Standard • Even if the supplemental claim fully satisfied Gibbs • Pendent Party jurisdiction would not be recognized • Unless a statute explicitly conferred it.

More Related