Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties · ¶35

Nor is it anomalous for federal jurisdiction to turn, at least in part, on the happenstance of how litigation proceeded. “[A]ctual litigation” generally “define[s] the parties' controversy,” even if “events could have unfolded differently.” Vaden, 556 U. S., at 68. “[A] party's ability to gain adjudication . . . in federal court often depends on how that question happens to have been presented.” Ibid., n. 17; see, e. g., Kokkonen, 511 U. S., at 380–382 (explaining that jurisdiction may depend on whether a court happened to “retain jurisdiction” expressly over a settlement agreement).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.