Finley v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 28, 1989
Decided May 22, 1989
Full case nameBarbara Finley v. United States
Citations490 U.S. 545 (more)
109 S. Ct. 2003
ArgumentOral argument
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, O'Connor, Kennedy
DissentBlackmun
DissentStevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall
Laws applied
Federal Tort Claims Act
Superseded by
28 U.S.C. § 1367

Finely v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, was a case that the Supreme Court of the United States heard and decided in 1989.[1] The case addressed the jurisdictional requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act. In response to the Finely decision, the United States Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1367.[2]

Background

In 1983, Barbara Finley's husband and two of their children were flying into San Diego, California. As the plane approached San Diego, it flew into electric transmissions, causing the plane to crash. None of the passengers survived.[3]

Finley sued in state court, alleging that San Diego Gas and Electric Company had been negligent in illuminating the transmission lines, and that the city of San Diego had been negligent in maintaining the runway lights. Finley subsequently learned that the Federal Aviation Administration was responsible or the runway lights, so she brought a new lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.[1] Finley's complaint asserted that the federal district court had jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Later, Finely amended her federal complaint to re-assert her claims against the state-court defendants. There was no independent basis for jurisdiction over those parties.[3]

The District Court granted Finley's motion based on a pendent jurisdiction theory like that of United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the FTCA permits pendent-party jurisdiction.[1]

Decision

Justice Scalia, quoting Chief Justice Marshall, stated that "two things are necessary to create jurisdiction, whether original or appellate. The Constitution must have given to the court the capacity to take it, and an act of Congress must have supplied it."[3] The majority distinguished United Mine Workers, asserting that it viewed Congress' delegation of jurisdiction more narrowly.[1]

Justices Stevens and Blackmun both dissented, arguing that pendent-party jurisdiction allows federal courts to fashion more complete relief in a more efficient manner.[3]

Aftermath

Congress passed 28 U.S.C. 1367 in response to Finley.[2]

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 "Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2023-10-06.
  2. 1 2 Subrin, Stephen; Minow, Martha; Brodin, Mark; Main, Thomas; Lahav, Alexandra (2020). Civil Procedure: Doctrine, Practice, and Context (6th ed.). Aspen. pp. 914–917. ISBN 9781543820911.
  3. 1 2 3 4 "Barbara FINLEY, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2023-10-06.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.