Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]

Painter v. Harvey | 863 F.2d 329 (1988)

Plaintiff sues defendant. But now defendant has a beef of his own to assert against the plaintiff. A defendant may be able to assert a counterclaim as part of the same case. In Painter versus Harvey, the plaintiff sued in federal court. Meanwhile, the defendant asserted a state law counterclaim that would normally fall outside of the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Does a federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction accommodate counterclaims?

Early one morning, Florhline Painter was driving her car erratically in the town of Luray, Virginia. Larry Harvey, a town police officer, pulled her over. She appeared drunk, so Harvey arrested her for driving under the influence. Harvey transported Painter in the back seat of his patrol car to the station. A plastic divider separated Painter and Harvey, and two other police cars accompanied them there.

When Painter arrived at the station, she was partially undressed. She claimed that Harvey raped her. Several months later, Painter appeared before the town council to file a complaint against Harvey. She described her version of the arrest, and she also issued a written statement to a local newspaper, claiming that Harvey used excessive force.

Painter sued Harvey in federal district court under Title Forty-Two of the United States Code, Section Nineteen Eighty-Three. Painter claimed Harvey lacked probable cause and used excessive force to make the arrest.

Harvey filed a defamation counterclaim, based on Painter’s statements alleging rape and excessive force. The jury found in favor of Harvey on Painter’s Section Nineteen Eighty-Three claim. It also found in Harvey’s favor on his defamation counterclaim and awarded him damages.

Painter moved to set aside the verdict, claiming that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the defamation counterclaim. As a state-law claim between parties lacking diverse citizenship, the counterclaim lacked an independent jurisdictional basis. The court denied the motion, reasoning that it could exercise jurisdiction over a compulsory counterclaim. Painter appealed to the Fourth Circuit.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

свернуть