Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. is an excellent case for explaining supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1367 and it ties together all the cases that came before it.
That's the thing, they're all really (linear?) and they build on each other, even if some of all of the rules from the old cases are overturned.
They illustrate how these complex fact patterns and legal issues produce a (relatively clear) answer in civpro.
Additionally, I really like the broad type of policy concerns derived from the CivPro cases. I was just thinking about PLEADINGS FACT / EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS --- specifically, for the fed. cts- Twombly
(re: heightened pleadings standard re circumstantial evidence against businesses) and FRCP rule 9 (heightened pleadings standard for any fraud claim)... and then for the states, well, close to half of them are "FACT-BASED", where you need sufficient facts to state ANY claim....
It dawned upon me... even through the "heightened" or "fact-based" standards filter plaintiffs out of court, could the result (e.g. less docket flow) allow for the existence of MORE LIBERAL TYPES
OF CLAIMS, given there's a way to filter out the specific
(e.g. Would a strict "fact based" state be more able to create liability for new, more progressive torts? - One that I had been thinking of was "retalitory demotion" in the workplace...?)
This really got me going the other day --- Is this basically common knowledge, or am I missing something?