Hedges v. Musco

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that New Jersey's constitutional provision concerning unreasonable searches and seizures is interpreted analogously to the Fourth Amendment
• holding that New Jersey’s constitutional provisions concerning unreasonable searches and seizures is interpreted analogously to the Fourth Amendment
• holding that District Courts “must” decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims “unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.”
• explaining that § 1367(d) provides that the limitation period for state law claims is tolled while those claims are pending in federal court
• instructing that after dismissing original jurisdiction claims, district courts “must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so”
• instructing that after dismissing original jurisdiction claims, district courts “must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).