28 U.S.C. § 1331

1,242 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 85 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Train
  510 F.2d 692· D.C. Cir.· 1974-12-05 ·cited 230×
  The court held that the Administrator has discretion regarding the publication date of effluent limitation guidelines for point source categories not listed in Section 306(b)(1)(A), but must publish guidelines for all categories by December 31, 1974. The court also held that the
• Bonetti v. Embarq Mgmt. Co.
  715 F. Supp. 2d 1222· M.D. Fla.· 2009-08-04 ·cited 188×
  The Court held that it should not independently scrutinize the reasonableness of attorneys' fees in FLSA settlements unless there is objective evidence that the plaintiff's recovery was adversely affected by the fee amount.
• Adolph G. Hoffman v. Halden
  268 F.2d 280· 9th Cir.· 1959-05-28 ·cited 184×
  The court held that the second amended complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action under the Civil Rights Act, and that the district court had jurisdiction. The court also addressed the elements of conspiracy claims under various Civil Rights statutes and the role of overt ac
• Carter v. Gallagher
  452 F.2d 315· 8th Cir.· 1971-09-09 ·cited 170×
• Eisen v. Eastman
  421 F.2d 560· 2d Cir.· 1969-11-28 ·cited 160×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the plaintiff's alleged harm was purely economic, not a deprivation of personal liberty. It also affirmed the district court's finding of a sufficient jurisdictional amount under 2
• Hattie Brazier v. Cherry
  293 F.2d 401· 5th Cir.· 1961-07-07 ·cited 126×
  The court held that 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988, when applied with the Georgia Survival Statute, creates a cause of action not intended by Congress. The dissent argues this circumvents limitations in § 1986.
• Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Smith
  676 F.2d 1023· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-24 ·cited 123×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to hear claims of systemic constitutional violations by the INS, even if some claims might otherwise be reviewable only by courts of appeals, and that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required in this case.
• Wolff v. Selective Serv. Local Bd. NO. 16
  372 F.2d 817· 2d Cir.· 1967-01-30 ·cited 119×
  Local draft boards exceeded their jurisdiction by reclassifying students as 'delinquents' for participating in a protest, and the court has jurisdiction to review this action due to the threat to First Amendment rights.
• United States v. City OF Chicago
  549 F.2d 415· 7th Cir.· 1977-01-11 ·cited 113×
  The court held that the withholding of federal revenue sharing funds from the City of Chicago was an improper and improvident exercise of equitable discretion.
• Humana OF S.C., Inc. v. Califano
  590 F.2d 1070· D.C. Cir.· 1978-09-18 ·cited 111×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that Humana failed to exhaust administrative remedies for its statutory and constitutional claims regarding Medicare reimbursement rates, but its procedural challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act was properly before the court. The court affirmed the distr
• Ellis v. Blum
  643 F.2d 68· 2d Cir.· 1981-02-18 ·cited 108×
  The court held that the Federal Question Jurisdictional Amendments Act of 1980 mandates reversal and remand, and that mandamus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 is available to review the Secretary's procedures.
• A. O. Smith Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  530 F.2d 515· 3d Cir.· 1976-02-11 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm in the record before the district court, warranting reversal of the preliminary injunctions.
• Doucette v. Vincent
  194 F.2d 834· 1st Cir.· 1952-02-05 ·cited 101×
  The court held that evidence of a better appliance is not admissible to establish the legal standard of care in negligence or unseaworthiness claims, and that federal courts have jurisdiction over maritime claims brought on the law side under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, even without divers
• Jaffee v. United States
  592 F.2d 712· 3d Cir.· 1979-02-09 ·cited 98×
  The court held that the claim for medical care is barred by sovereign immunity as it constitutes a claim for money damages, while the claim for warning is equitable and not barred by sovereign immunity.
• The State Hwy. Comm'n OF Mo. v. Volpe
  479 F.2d 1099· 8th Cir.· 1973-04-02 ·cited 94×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the Secretary of Transportation has discretion to withhold unobligated funds apportioned under the Federal-Aid Highway Act, as the "sense of Congress" language is precatory and not a mandatory directive.
• DOE v. United States Dep't of Just.
  753 F.2d 1092· D.C. Cir.· 1985-02-01 ·cited 90×
  The dissenting judge would remand the Bivens claims to allow the plaintiff to amend her complaint to allege timely publication of defamatory statements.
• Foster v. City OF Detroit
  405 F.2d 138· 6th Cir.· 1968-12-11 ·cited 90×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction was properly invoked and retained, and that the statute of limitations and class action rules were correctly applied.
• Aston Bartholomew v. Universe Tankships, Inc.
  263 F.2d 437· 2d Cir.· 1959-01-09 ·cited 90×
  The court held that the Jones Act applies when substantial contacts exist between the transaction and the United States, and that a maritime claim for unseaworthiness can be tried to a jury alongside a Jones Act claim under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction.
• Dolly M. E. Filartiga and Joel Filartiga v. Americo Norberto Pena-Irala
  630 F.2d 876· 2d Cir.· 1980-06-30 ·cited 89×
  Deliberate torture by state officials violates international human rights norms and the law of nations, providing jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute for suits by aliens, regardless of the victim's nationality.
• Blake v. Sant Pallan
  554 F.2d 947· 9th Cir.· 1977-05-26 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the Commissioner did not have a right to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2) and that his complaint-in-intervention, filed under permissive intervention, was properly dismissed for lack of independent federal jurisdiction.
• Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Callaway
  524 F.2d 79· 2d Cir.· 1975-09-09 ·cited 87×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the lower court's decision regarding the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and reverse the majority's grant of injunctive relief.
• IVY Broad. Co., Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. & N.Y. Tel. Co.
  391 F.2d 486· 2d Cir.· 1968-02-13 ·cited 87×
  A federal court has jurisdiction over claims for negligence and breach of contract in interstate telephone service, as these claims arise under federal law, and over counterclaims for unpaid charges that are compulsory or arise under the Communications Act.
• Brown v. Bullock
  294 F.2d 415· 2d Cir.· 1961-09-05 ·cited 85×
  The court, in a concurring opinion, suggests the appeal was improvidently granted and a waste of time, focusing on pleading niceties rather than substantive issues.
• Brady v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
  401 F.2d 87· 3d Cir.· 1968-08-13 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the Railway Labor Act's System Board of Adjustment lacks jurisdiction over disputes between an employee and their union, allowing for judicial review of claims of hostile discrimination and wrongful discharge.
• Fitzgerald v. PAN Am. World Airways, Inc.
  229 F.2d 499· 2d Cir.· 1956-01-26 ·cited 82×
  A federal criminal statute enacted for the benefit of a specific class creates an actionable civil right for members of that class who are harmed by its violation, and a suit based on such a statute arises under federal law, conferring jurisdiction.
• DR. John T. MacDONALD Found., Inc. v. Califano
  571 F.2d 328· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-17 ·cited 80×
• ST. Louis Univ. v. Blue Cross Hosp. Serv.
  537 F.2d 283· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-12 ·cited 79×
  The court held that while federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 is barred by § 405(h) for claims seeking reimbursement under Medicare, jurisdiction exists for procedural due process claims challenging the administrative process itself. The court also found that the equal pro
• Springdale Convalescent Ctr. v. Mathews
  545 F.2d 943· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-20 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction but erred in finding the Secretary's regulation unconstitutional, as the Secretary has statutory authority to recapture excess accelerated depreciation payments.
• Langevin v. Chenango Court, Inc.
  447 F.2d 296· 2d Cir.· 1971-07-23 ·cited 78×
  The court held that tenants in FHA-assisted housing projects are entitled to a fair administrative hearing before rent increases are approved, as a matter of due process.
• Paac as a Comm'n v. Rizzo
  502 F.2d 306· 3d Cir.· 1974-06-14 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the Mayor had the authority to remove the Executive Director based on local law, and that federal law did not preclude this removal. It also found that the defamation claim and the removed state court action were improperly before the federal court due to lack
• Aguayo v. Elliot R. Richardson
  473 F.2d 1090· 2d Cir.· 1973-01-18 ·cited 76×
  The court held that at least one plaintiff has standing to raise constitutional and statutory claims, some organizations have standing for statutory claims, and the City and Commissioner Sugarman have standing for statutory and constitutional claims respectively, sufficient to su
• Lowe v. Ingalls Shipbuilding
  723 F.2d 1173· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-30 ·cited 75×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the claims did not arise under federal law and lacked complete diversity, vacating the district court's judgment.
• Hunsucker v. Phinney
  497 F.2d 29· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-10 ·cited 74×
• Mahone v. Waddle
  564 F.2d 1018· 3d Cir.· 1977-08-24 ·cited 73×
  The court held that a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 cannot be asserted against a municipality, and municipalities are not subject to suits for damages under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• United Farmworkers OF Fla. Hous. Project, Inc. v. The City OF Delray Beach
  493 F.2d 799· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-12 ·cited 73×
• Ne. Dep't Ilgwu Health & Welf. Fund & Sol Hoffman v. Teamsters Local Union NO. 229 Welf. Fund
  764 F.2d 147· 3d Cir.· 1985-05-23 ·cited 70×
  Federal jurisdiction existed over all aspects of the controversy under ERISA's express grant, and the court should not be deterred by procedural formalities.
• Sheehan v. Army & AIR Force Exch. Serv.
  619 F.2d 1132· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-27 ·cited 70×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over Sheehan's wrongful discharge claim against AAFES, based on the Tucker Act for monetary relief and federal question jurisdiction combined with the Administrative Procedure Act for nonmonetary relief.
• Salvadore Rotolo v. The Borough OF Charleroi
  532 F.2d 920· 3d Cir.· 1976-03-22 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing civil rights complaints without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend, particularly regarding jurisdictional allegations and conclusory factual claims.
• Nial Ruth COX v. A. M. Stanton, M.D.
  529 F.2d 47· 4th Cir.· 1975-10-06 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for a civil rights action accrues under federal law when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury, not when the injury occurred under state law.
• Schatte v. Int'l Alliance of Theatrical Stage Emps. & Moving Picture Mach. Operators of United States & Canada
  182 F.2d 158· 9th Cir.· 1950-05-01 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief under the cited federal statutes, and that a prior decision involving the same parties and similar claims was decisive. The court also found that Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act was inapplicable due to the b
• Conover v. Honorable Frank M. Montemuro, Jr.
  477 F.2d 1073· 3d Cir.· 1972-12-20 ·cited 69×
  The court reinstated prior panel opinions, excluding portions on judicial immunity in § 1983 injunctive relief suits, and declined to rule on the issue.
• Gautreaux v. Romney
  448 F.2d 731· 7th Cir.· 1971-09-10 ·cited 68×
  The court held that HUD, through its Secretary, violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by knowingly approving and funding racially discriminatory public housing sites in Chicago. The court also found the case was not moot
• Sol A. Dann v. Studebaker-Packard Corp.
  288 F.2d 201· 6th Cir.· 1961-02-06 ·cited 68×
  The court held that while the District Court had jurisdiction to consider the rescission claim, rescission was correctly denied on the merits.
• Jordine v. Walling
  185 F.2d 662· 3d Cir.· 1950-11-10 ·cited 68×
  A federal district court lacks jurisdiction over a civil action for maintenance and cure absent diversity of citizenship, even if joined with a Jones Act claim, because maintenance and cure is a non-federal maritime claim.
• Nuclear Eng'g Co. v. Scott
  660 F.2d 241· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-26 ·cited 67×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal due to the untimely filing, and that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over both the Illinois action (no federal question or diversity jurisdiction) and the NEC action (no actua
• Est. of Arthur K. Watson v. Blumenthal
  586 F.2d 925· 2d Cir.· 1978-10-30 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the claim was primarily contractual and thus exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, and that the 1976 APA amendments did not override this limitation.
• Murphy v. Colonial Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  388 F.2d 609· 2d Cir.· 1967-12-11 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and that the election was unfair under federal law, despite the Home Loan Bank Board's denial of administrative relief.
• Agnew v. City OF Compton
  239 F.2d 226· 9th Cir.· 1956-12-17 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a cause of action under the Civil Rights Act because the alleged wrongs did not deprive the plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution and federal laws.
• Mark v. Groff
  521 F.2d 1376· 9th Cir.· 1975-09-02 ·cited 64×
  The court held that IRS agents are entitled only to qualified immunity for acts performed in the course of official conduct, not absolute immunity.
• Farkas v. Tex. Instrument, Inc.
  375 F.2d 629· 5th Cir.· 1967-03-31 ·cited 64×
  The court held that while the district court had jurisdiction, the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted for either breach of contract or conspiracy.