Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

Rule 13, Fed. R. Civ. P. distinguishes between 'compulsory' and 'permissive' counterclaims. If the defendants' claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim, then, if certain other requisites not here pertinent, are met, it is compulsory. By definition, compulsory claims are 'ancillary to the claim asserted in the complaint and [sic] no independent basis of federal jurisdiction is required.' United States v. Heyward-Robinson Co., supra at 1081. Alternatively, if the counterclaim is unconnected with the transaction out of which the primary claim arose, it is permissive, and independent jurisdictional grounds are required. Lesnik v. Public Industrials Corp., 144 F.2d 968 (2d Cir. 1944). 

The threshold question to be decided is whether defendants' counterclaims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim. If so, then the counterclaims are compulsory, and are properly before the Court. Thus, the definition of 'transaction or occurrence' is critical to this determination. 

There is a substantial body of law which liberally defines the test of compulsoriness as requiring that there be not so much 'an absolute identity of factual backgrounds ...

Register or login to access full content