Pendent Jurisdiction

• Author: Kenneth L. Karst
• Pages: 1891

Page 1891

When a federal court has JURISDICTION over a case presenting a FEDERAL QUESTION, the court may also take jurisdiction over closely related claims based on state law. According to Gibbs v. United Mine Workers of America (1966), pendent jurisdiction over a state law claim is appropriate when the state and federal claims share "a common nucleus of operative fact." If the federal claim is itself insubstantial, or is dismissed before the case is tried, it will not serve as a basis for getting a state claim heard by the federal court; such a case should be dismissed. The federal court has discretion to decline pendent jurisdiction over a state claim when the state issues are apt to predominate in the case (making it more appropriate for hearing in a state court), or when the combination of federal and state claims is apt to produce jury confusion. (See ANCILLARY JURISDICTION.)

In PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL & HOSPITAL V. HALDERMAN (1984) the Supreme Court drastically curtailed use of pendent jurisdiction in CIVIL RIGHTS cases. The Court held that the ELEVENTH AMENDMENT bars a federal court from entertaining an action?whether for DAMAGES or for INJUNCTION?against a state officer, when the action is based on an alleged violation of state law.

KENNETH L. KARST

(1986)

Bibliography

WRI...