Document Type


Publication Date



In Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger the Supreme Court last Term addressed for the first time the permissible scope of ancillary jurisdiction under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although the Court approved using the doctrine in the situations to which it has most commonly been applied, it disapproved applying the doctrine to a plaintiff's claim against a nondiverse third-party defendant. This Article suggests that the line drawn by the Court in Kroger is likely to be particularly mischievous and is inconsistent with the justifications of fairness, convenience, and economy generally advanced to support the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court's indication that a clear congressional directive in the basic diversity statute required this outcome adds to Snyder v. Harris and Zahn v. International Paper Co. another unhappy episode in the shell game whose aim seems to be reducing the federal caseload by attributing to Congress a nonexistent, but perhaps desirable, intention.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.