Finley v. United States
United States Supreme Court
490 U.S. 545 (1989)
- Written by Shelby Crawford, JD
Facts
After her husband and children were killed in a plane crash, Finley (plaintiff) sued a gas company for negligently positioning transmission lines and the city of San Diego for negligently maintaining airport runway lights in state court. Finley also sued the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in federal court under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for negligently maintaining the runway lights. Finley moved to amend her federal complaint so that it would include the claims she asserted against the defendants she sued in state court. The federal court had no independent jurisdiction over Finley’s state court claims. The district court granted Finley’s motion to amend and asserted pendent jurisdiction over the state court claims. The district court certified an interlocutory appeal and the appellate court reversed, finding that there was no pendent-party jurisdiction under the FTCA. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that the FTCA does not permit an assertion of pendent jurisdiction over other nonfederal parties to related claims. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s reversal and rejection of pendent-party jurisdiction under the FTCA.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)
Dissent (Blackmun, J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.