Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 1, 2005 Decided June 23, 2005
Full case name	Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.
Citations	545 U.S. 546 (more) 125 S. Ct. 2611; 162 L. Ed. 2d 502; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5015
Case history
Prior	Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 157 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (S.D. Fla. 2001); affirmed, 333 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2003); rehearing en banc denied, 362 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 2004); Summary judgment granted, Del Rosario Ortega v. Star Kist Foods, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D.P.R. 2002); affirmed in part, 370 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2004); Cert. granted, cases consolidated, 543 U.S. 924 (2004).
Holding
28 U.S.C. § 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over joined claims that do not individually meet the amount-in-controversy requirements of §1332, provided that at least one claim meets the amount-in-controversy requirements.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Majority	Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Souter, Thomas
Dissent	Stevens, joined by Breyer
Dissent	Ginsburg, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Breyer
Laws applied
28 U.S.C. § 1332, § 1367

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that 28 U.S.C. § 1367^[1] permits supplemental jurisdiction over joined claims that do not individually meet the amount-in-controversy requirements of § 1332,^[2] provided that at least one claim meets the amount-in-controversy requirements.^[3]