← All Authorities
United States Leading Case claim forms

Exxon Mobil Corp v Allapattah Services Inc

545 US 546 (2005)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Supreme Court
Year2005
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Under 28 USC §1367, federal supplemental jurisdiction permits class member claims lacking independent amount-in-controversy satisfaction where at least one named plaintiff meets the requirement.

Key Principle

Supplemental jurisdiction under 28 USC §1367 allows a federal court to hear claims by additional class members that do not independently satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement, provided at least one named plaintiff does.

Area of Law

procedure

Related Cases

Getswift Ltd v Webb (2022) 276 CLR 553

High Court of Australia held there is no power to make a common fund order in favour of litigation funders at the interlocutory stage of a class action.

UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77

Anshun estoppel bars relitigation where it was unreasonable not to raise the issue in earlier proceedings; re-litigation may also constitute abuse of process.

Palmer v Ayres (2017) 259 CLR 478

High Court of Australia held the reflective loss principle (Prudential Assurance rule) does not apply in Australia, permitting shareholders to recover losses independently of the company.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Exxon Mobil Corp v Allapattah Services Inc and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Exxon Mobil Corp v Allapattah ...