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

• United States v. Helmer Mosquera
  845 F.2d 1122· 1st Cir.· 1988-05-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the petitioner's motions without further proceedings, as factual disputes remained unresolved and the petitioner's pro se status warranted further development of the claims.
• Shiffler v. The Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF the United States
  838 F.2d 78· 3d Cir.· 1988-01-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction and granted summary judgment because the plaintiff's state law claims were preempted by ERISA and the denial of insurance benefits was not arbitrary and capricious.
• Helene Edwards v. McMAHON
  834 F.2d 796· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-16 ·cited 14×
  The government's position was not substantially justified, and the award of attorneys' fees should have been affirmed or remanded.
• United Ass'n OF Journeymen & Apprentices OF the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Indus. OF the United States & Canada v. Bechtel Power Corp. & Ronald Weatherred
  834 F.2d 884· 10th Cir.· 1987-12-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that plaintiffs' state law blacklisting claims were not preempted by § 301 of the LMRA, and therefore the federal district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
• Ray v. Sch. Dist. of DeSoto Cnty.
  666 F. Supp. 1524· M.D. Fla.· 1987-08-05 ·cited 14×
  The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the exclusion of HIV-positive hemophiliac children from regular classrooms.
• Nieves v. Col. Robert C. Deshler
  786 F.2d 445· 1st Cir.· 1986-03-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentality (NAFI) is a proper defendant under the FLSA, and the district court has jurisdiction over such claims, reversing the dismissal. It also held that FLSA cases are removable from state to federal court absent express statut
• Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Ferre
  636 F. Supp. 970· S.D. Fla.· 1985-08-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction over the defendant's counterclaim and that each count of the counterclaim failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• John v. Arvanis
  739 F.2d 1287· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-31 ·cited 14×
  The United States is not liable to subcontractors when a prime contractor fails to obtain a Miller Act payment bond and defaults, as neither the Miller Act nor the Federal Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity in such circumstances.
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Donovan
  713 F.2d 1243· 6th Cir.· 1983-08-12 ·cited 14×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to grant declaratory and injunctive relief against the Secretary of Labor regarding the Black Lung Benefits Act's application to railroads.
• Coastal Petroleum Co. v. U.S.S. Agri-Chemicals
  695 F.2d 1314· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing an injunction because federal question jurisdiction was absent and the injunction did not fall within exceptions to the anti-injunction statute.
• Smith v. Roscoe L. Eggar
  655 F.2d 181· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction and that the Commissioner could not rescind the agreement based on the taxpayer's removal of papers from a bank vault, as the agreement was not ambiguous and the removal did not violate its terms.
• Jensen v. Farrell Lines, Inc.
  625 F.2d 379· 2d Cir.· 1980-05-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the employer's actions did not constitute state action, and therefore, the supervisors' First Amendment claim failed. Even assuming state action, the court found no constitutional right for supervisors to demand majority selection of their union.
• Johnsrud v. Carter
  620 F.2d 29· 3d Cir.· 1980-04-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the Administrative Procedure Act waives sovereign immunity for equitable relief claims and the political question doctrine was improperly applied to a jurisdiction
• People OF the State OF Ill. v. Outboard Marine Corp., Inc.
  619 F.2d 623· 7th Cir.· 1980-03-28 ·cited 14×
  A state has a federal common law cause of action for nuisance against an in-state pollution source to prevent pollution of interstate or navigable waters, and a state has a right to intervene in a federal suit concerning such pollution under the Clean Water Act.
• Spokane Cnty. Legal Servs., Inc. v. The Legal Servs. Corp.
  614 F.2d 662· 9th Cir.· 1980-02-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and that while the procedural due process claims were properly dismissed, the claims regarding the merits of the LSC decision (arbitrary and capricious, statutory violation) require remand for review under a r
• Broadbent v. Org. OF Am. States
  628 F.2d 27· D.C. Cir.· 1980-01-08 ·cited 14×
  The employment of internal administrative staff by an international organization is a non-commercial activity, and thus such organizations are immune from suit for disputes arising from this employment, absent a waiver.
• Rowe v. State OF Tenn.
  609 F.2d 259· 6th Cir.· 1979-11-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that actions of state administrators of a mixed federal and state program may be considered 'under color of state law' for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even if federal law also applies.
• Navajo Tribal Util. Auth. v. Ariz. Dep't OF Revenue
  608 F.2d 1228· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-26 ·cited 14×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority's claims because 28 U.S.C. § 1362 does not apply to subordinate tribal entities, and other jurisdictional bases were barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1341.
• Lt. Jimmy N. Denton v. Schlesinger
  605 F.2d 484· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-03 ·cited 14×
  The Court of Claims, not the district court, has exclusive jurisdiction over claims against the United States for monetary damages exceeding $10,000, including those seeking restoration to military service.
• Stanley L. Drennan, M.D. v. Patricia Harris (Successor to F. David Mathews)
  606 F.2d 846· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-04 ·cited 14×
  The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the physician's claim regarding Medicare overpayments and recoupment.
• Am. Ass'n OF Commodity Traders v. Dep't OF the Treas.
  598 F.2d 1233· 1st Cir.· 1979-05-31 ·cited 14×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, affirming the dismissal.
• Gilman J. Chasse v. Chasen
  595 F.2d 59· 1st Cir.· 1979-03-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Circular INS-2MI is not a law or regulation, and plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
• Braniff Int'l, Inc. v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
  576 F.2d 1100· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the mere fact that a constitutional claim might be raised as a defense before a state administrative body does not, by itself, deprive a federal court of subject matter jurisdiction when injunctive and declaratory relief are sought based on the unconstitutiona
• RoANE v. Mathews
  538 F.2d 852· 9th Cir.· 1976-07-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims because the appellants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the Social Security Act.
• Citizens Ass'n OF Georgetown the Comm. OF 100 ON the Fed. City v. Washington
  535 F.2d 1318· D.C. Cir.· 1976-05-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act's citizen suit provision to award attorneys' fees because the complaint did not allege the District violated an emission standard or limitation.
• Reich v. City OF Freeport
  527 F.2d 666· 7th Cir.· 1975-12-24 ·cited 14×
  A former police officer lacks standing to challenge municipal ordinances as a citizen or taxpayer, and his claims regarding his discharge are barred by res judicata due to prior state court determination.
• Murrow v. Clifford
  502 F.2d 1066· 3d Cir.· 1974-05-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a single district judge has the power to decide a non-constitutional ground in favor of plaintiffs, even if a constitutional ground exists that might require a three-judge court. However, the majority opinion concluded it was improper for a single judge to rej
• Grace v. Ludwig
  484 F.2d 1262· 2d Cir.· 1973-09-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that attorneys' fees cannot be awarded when the SEC proceeding was withdrawn and no fund was established or legal principle created, as there was no unjust enrichment or special circumstance justifying such an award.
• Johnson v. The Lower Elwha Tribal Cmty. OF the Lower Elwha Indian Reservation
  484 F.2d 200· 9th Cir.· 1973-09-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under the Indian Civil Rights Act and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4) to hear claims of due process violations by an Indian tribe.
• The City OF Boulder v. Snyder
  396 F.2d 853· 10th Cir.· 1968-07-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court erred in not dismissing the action for lack of federal jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy did not meet the statutory requirement.
• Wallach v. City OF Pagedale
  376 F.2d 671· 8th Cir.· 1967-05-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish federal jurisdiction, and the trial court correctly dismissed the action without prejudice.
• Harold C. Ackert for the benefit of Laura B. Smith v. Honorable Frederick van Pelt Bryan
  299 F.2d 65· 2d Cir.· 1962-01-03 ·cited 14×
  The court denied a petition for mandamus seeking to stay a transfer of venue, finding that the transferee court must assume jurisdiction to consider the substantial question of Investment Company Act applicability, despite doubts.
• N. Star Cap. Acquisitions, LLC v. Krig
  611 F. Supp. 2d 1324· M.D. Fla.· 2009-04-21 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the litigation privilege does not apply to the specific conduct at issue and that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding violations of the FDCPA and FCCPA, precluding summary judgment.
• Shell Oil Co. v. Altina Assocs., Inc.
  866 F. Supp. 536· M.D. Fla.· 1994-07-19 ·cited 13×
  The court held that federal courts have jurisdiction over franchisor actions under the PMPA, and granted a preliminary injunction because the franchisor demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
• Altheus Richardson v. United Steelworkers OF Am.
  864 F.2d 1162· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-06 ·cited 13×
  A state law claim alleging a union breached its duty to advise employees of employer's right to replace striking workers is completely preempted by the federal duty of fair representation under the NLRA, allowing removal to federal court and triggering the six-month statute of li
• Captain Everette T. Beers v. N. Am. van Lines, Inc.
  836 F.2d 910· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-03 ·cited 13×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction was improper because the federal question was not apparent on the face of the well-pleaded complaint, and a federal preemption defense does not create federal question jurisdiction.
• Hossein A. Salehi v. Dist. Dir.
  796 F.2d 1286· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-16 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the aliens' claims challenging administrative actions and seeking asylum, as these claims were not direct attacks on their final deportation orders.
• Tyler v. Mmes. Pasqua & Toloso
  748 F.2d 283· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-10 ·cited 13×
  The Food Stamp Act does not create a private cause of action for expedited service, nor is such a claim independently actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Heckler
  721 F.2d 431· 3d Cir.· 1983-11-16 ·cited 13×
  The court held that federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review the constitutional challenge, and that the plaintiff has standing, but ultimately affirmed the dismissal because the plaintiff is not entitled to relief on the merits.
• Fla. Nursing Home Ass'n v. Page
  616 F.2d 1355· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-16 ·cited 13×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar prospective relief requiring a state agency to comply with federal law, and a state waives Eleventh Amendment immunity by contracting to abide by federal laws applicable to a federal program.
• Westmoreland Hosp. Ass'n v. Blue Cross OF Western Pennsylvania
  605 F.2d 119· 3d Cir.· 1979-09-10 ·cited 13×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  Federal question jurisdiction exists if the complaint, on its face, requires interpretation of federal statutes or regulations, even if state law claims are also present.
• Payne v. Gov't OF the Dist. OF Columbia
  D.D.C.· 1977-06-07 ·cited 13×
  The court, in a special concurrence, notes that the monetary value of the rights allegedly violated may not meet the jurisdictional amount and directs the trial court to consider this and other issues arising from a recent amendment to the jurisdictional statute.
• Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick
  505 F.2d 278· 9th Cir.· 1974-10-25 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint sua sponte without notice or hearing, and that plaintiffs should have been given an opportunity to amend their complaint for injunctive relief and damages.
• Warrington Sewer Co. v. Tracy
  463 F.2d 771· 3d Cir.· 1972-07-06 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a claim based on the alleged illegality of a state contract, even if framed as a constitutional violation, does not present a federal question sufficient for federal court jurisdiction.
• Dickson v. Mrs. C. O. Edwards
  293 F.2d 211· 5th Cir.· 1961-01-13 ·cited 13×
• Schleider v. GVDB Operations, LLC
  121 F.4th 149· 11th Cir.· 2024-10-31 ·cited 12×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's remand of a negligence lawsuit to state court, holding that an assisted living facility's failure to prevent COVID-19 spread did not implicate federal question jurisdiction under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Ac
• Nat'l Kidney Patients Ass'n v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  958 F.2d 1127· D.C. Cir.· 1992-03-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Social Security Act, which governs Medicare appeals.
• United States v. Tabor Court Realty Corp.
  943 F.2d 335· 3d Cir.· 1991-09-05 ·cited 12×
  The Third Circuit held that Carrier's failure to file a separate notice of appeal did not preclude the court from considering the validity of the assignment, as the issue was inextricably intertwined with Linde's appeal and the court's prior ruling.
• Kidder v. Maxus Energy Corp. & Maxus Corporate Co.
  925 F.2d 556· 2d Cir.· 1991-02-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court properly declared Maxus Energy and Maxus Corporate could not assert claims under the 1934 Act, but erred in exercising pendent jurisdiction over state law claims and in the scope of the injunction.
• Greater Detroit Res. Recovery Auth. & Combustion Eng'g v. The United States Env't Prot. Agency
  916 F.2d 317· 6th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 12×
  The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying Clean Air Act action, and therefore could not award attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.