Also known as: same case-or-controversy · case or controversy
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An Article III requirement that federal courts may hear only disputes presenting a live controversy arising from the same transaction or occurrence, permitting supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact so that a plaintiff would ordinarily expect to try them together in a single proceeding.
ByteGlow LLC sued Apex Systems Corp in federal court for copyright infringement after Apex copied ByteGlow's source code. ByteGlow added a state misappropriation claim based on the same code theft and the poaching of its lead engineer that occurred during the copying episode. The court may hear the state claim because both rest on the identical sequence of events.
HarborNav sued Oceanic Lines in federal court for copyright infringement after Oceanic used unauthorized copies of HarborNav's voyage-planning charts in its onboard systems. HarborNav also asserted a state unfair-competition claim because Oceanic's training division repackaged those same charts into paid certification courses. The shared copying and use of the identical charts supplies the factual link that allows the court to hear the state claim.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The Cleveland Museum of Art filed a declaratory judgment action attacking a 1923 municipal ordinance that had never been enforced against any exhibition. The city had consistently supported comparable shows and had given written assurances that the ordinance would not be applied. Because the ordinance posed no realistic threat of enforcement, the dispute presented no live controversy for federal adjudication.
One plaintiff satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement in a diversity action against a corporate defendant. A second plaintiff asserted a claim arising from the identical accident that injured both. The court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the second plaintiff's claim even though it falls below the statutory threshold.
A physician challenged a state criminal abortion statute that directly regulated his practice. The physician faced immediate enforcement risk under the statute. The physician therefore presented a live controversy that satisfied Article III requirements.
Plaintiffs proposed a global settlement of asbestos claims that would bind future claimants who had not yet manifested injury. The district court evaluated whether the settlement terms fairly resolved the entire dispute. The presence of a single integrated controversy allowed the court to assess the fairness of the proposed resolution for all affected parties.
The claims must share a common nucleus of operative fact so that a plaintiff would ordinarily expect to try them together. When a federal copyright claim and a state misappropriation claim both rest on the same alleged copying of source code and related hiring decisions, the factual overlap satisfies the test.
No. When a statute has never been enforced, city officials have given written assurances of non-enforcement, and no realistic threat of enforcement exists, the dispute is hypothetical and federal courts will not issue advisory opinions.
The court possesses discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to decline supplemental jurisdiction once every claim supporting original jurisdiction has been dismissed, especially when the remaining state claims predominate or raise novel issues of state law.
…failure, possible future pregnancy, and possible future unpreparedness for parenthood is too speculative to present an actual case or controversy. Pp. 127-129. (c) The physician-appellant Hallford, who is under two pending prosecutions for violating the Texas abortion laws, has standing to challenge the facial validity of those…