Supplemental Jurisdiction And Mind Mapping Software
Wednesday, September 8th, 2010As many legal professional have undoubtedly learned the hard way, a court’s jurisdiction over a claim or party is a fundamental issue to which there is no hiding. A court either has jurisdiction over the claim or party or it does not. If it does not, then there is nothing that can be done. Often, lawyers will put all their emphasis on this issue to get an essential claim started but then fail to anticipate that the jurisdictional requirement needs to be met throughout the entire case. This can prove problematic when new claims or parties are brought forth later on. Bringing such new claims or parties later on can be terrifying for a lawyer because it could systematically destroy the court’s jurisdiction. So, what can a lawyer do to avoid this problem? Well, first and foremost, the lawyer should be well prepared before the start of the case and should be able to anticipate who may be brought in and what claims may then be added. This is where it could be beneficial to a lawyer to use mind mapping software to diagram and brainstorm the case as relevant to the issue of supplemental jurisdiction. Undertaking this process beforehand, via the aid of a mind map, could save countless time and money.
The mind map concerning supplemental jurisdiction has two functions: to aid the lawyer in review of substantive law and as a tool to brainstorm who or what may be added to the case as time passes. In this regard, the mind map can be both a sword and a shield. It is a sword as it is backed by the law and a shield as it prepares the lawyer for changed circumstances. Both are critical for success. The lawyer should experiment as to how to create the mind map but as example, may want cheapest online cialis to include the following:
●Generally: federal court has supplemental jurisdiction over claims if it arises out of a common nucleus of operative fact from the original claim.
●Federal question: called pendent claim jurisdiction when of common nucleus of operative fact. Called pendent party jurisdiction when new claims of additional parties arise out of common nucleus of operative fact.
●Diversity cases: same common nucleus of operative fact rule applies. However, when new party comes in via permissive joinder, the additional party cannot result in a violation of complete diversity of citizenship requirement. However, the additional party claim need not satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. As for counterclaims, the jurisdictional amount need not be satisfied when the claim is compulsory (required). A permissive buy Professional Plasma Tooth Whitening Kit online counterclaim does not qualify for supplemental jurisdiction and does need to satisfy the jurisdictional amount. For cross-claims, if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence, it may be asserted without regard to amount in controversy or citizenship of parties to cross-claim.
○Precluded claims via diversity cases: claims by existing plaintiffs cialis review online against parties via impleader, compulsory joinder, and intervention; claims by persons to be joined as plaintiffs via compulsory joinder; claims by persons wanted to intervene as plaintiffs via intervention, where supplemental jurisdiction would violate diversity of citizenship requirement.
●Discretionary rejection: a federal court has discretion to exercise such jurisdiction over claims that would otherwise qualify if:
○claim raises novel online buy Camagra without prescription cheap or complex issue of state law
○supplemental claim predominates
○claims of original jurisdiction have been dismissed
○other compelling reasons.
A mind map would be very helpful in outlining the rules mentioned herein. Some of the rules are nuanced and cialis online a mind map, especially create via software, would make the task of understanding the material much easier and more efficient. The lawyer can then simply refer to the mind map for the law as well as any brainstorming the lawyer may have done for the particular case.
Mail this post