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

• Lister v. Comm'rs Court
  566 F.2d 490· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-17 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a special master who previously testified for a party should not have been appointed, and that plaintiffs failed to establish the jurisdictional amount for federal question jurisdiction, requiring remand.
• Alnoa G. Corp. v. City OF Houston
  563 F.2d 769· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-23 ·cited 11×
  Federal courts are barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1341 from enjoining state tax collection if a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts, and special street paving assessments are considered 'taxes' for this purpose.
• Gen. Ry. Signal Co. v. Corcoran
  921 F.2d 700· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the SBA, as a federal agency, is not a citizen of any state for diversity purposes, thus failing the requirements of the federal interpleader statute (28 U.S.C. § 1335). Consequently, the injunction issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2361 must be vacated.
• Robinson v. Mich. Consol. GAS Co. Inc.
  918 F.2d 579· 6th Cir.· 1990-11-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court had removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1452, but erred in granting summary judgment to MichCon by improperly finding federal preemption and in failing to consider the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint against the Trustee.
• Town OF W. Hartford v. Operation Rescue
  915 F.2d 92· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, as the plaintiff's allegation of property deprivation due to extortion was not wholly insubstantial or frivolous.
• In re Thornburgh
  869 F.2d 1503· D.C. Cir.· 1989-03-03 ·cited 10×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that mandamus is not appropriate because the district court's reference to special masters is not a clear usurpation of judicial power and the possibility of some valid relief cannot be confidently ruled out.
• Rocks v. City OF Philadelphia
  868 F.2d 644· 3d Cir.· 1989-03-01 ·cited 10×
  Taxpayers who are not directly injured and have no special relationship with the injured parties lack standing to assert equal protection claims based on municipal contracting requirements.
• Speedco v. Estes
  853 F.2d 909· Fed. Cir.· 1988-08-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the declaratory judgment complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the underlying threatened action was a state law contract claim, not a federal patent claim.
• Cosby v. Ward
  843 F.2d 967· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear claims that state administration of unemployment programs violates federal law or the Constitution, even if individual benefit determinations are subject to state review.
• Connors v. Tremont Mining Co.
  835 F.2d 1028· 3d Cir.· 1987-12-23 ·cited 10×
  The district court correctly held it lacked jurisdiction to entertain an action by trustees seeking reimbursement for medical benefits paid to black lung claimants because no final compensation orders had been obtained from the Department of Labor.
• Colonial Penn Grp., Inc. v. Colonial Deposit Co.
  834 F.2d 229· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a federal court lacks jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action filed by a party seeking to assert a federal defense against a state law claim, even if that defense involves federal law.
• United States v. State OF Wash.
  813 F.2d 1020· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Indian tribes' treaty interpretation claims do not give rise to a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and therefore do not support an award of attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Utley v. Varian Assocs., Inc.
  811 F.2d 1279· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court lacked removal jurisdiction because the state law claims, which incorporated federal affirmative action duties, did not present a substantial federal question as there was no private right of action under the relevant federal law.
• Nat'l City Bank v. Coopers AND Lybrand
  802 F.2d 990· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-23 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's order remanding the case to state court, finding no federal question or bankruptcy jurisdiction existed.
• Sarasota v. Env't Prot. Agency
  799 F.2d 674· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a federal grant applicant challenging the denial of grant funds under the Clean Water Act can pursue their claims in District Court, not exclusively in the Claims Court, as the primary relief sought is not a direct money judgment.
• Willis v. United States
  787 F.2d 1089· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-31 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the claimant was adequately notified of forfeiture procedures and waived his right to contest the seizure by failing to pursue judicial forfeiture.
• Warren v. Local 1759
  764 F.2d 1395· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-05 ·cited 10×
  Federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over a federal employee's duty of fair representation claim against their union, as Congress intended the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to have exclusive jurisdiction over such matters under the Civil Service Reform Act (
• Green v. Heckler
  742 F.2d 237· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that decisions regarding emergency advance payments under the Supplemental Security Income program are not subject to judicial review, as they are committed to the Secretary's discretion and precluded by statute and regulation.
• Tierney v. Schweiker
  718 F.2d 449· D.C. Cir.· 1983-09-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Social Security Administration's notice-and-consent form did not meet the requirements of Internal Revenue Code subsection 6103(c) for disclosing confidential tax information, as it was coercive and lacked specificity.
• Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Comm'n OF the Supreme Court OF Ill. v. Schweiker
  715 F.2d 282· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-11 ·cited 10×
  The Seventh Circuit held that the Disciplinary Commission, as an entity that paid social security taxes and has a direct interest in its employees' coverage, can sue under section 205(g) of the Social Security Act for a determination of coverage, even though it is not an 'individ
• Leola M. Broadnax v. United States Army
  710 F.2d 865· D.C. Cir.· 1983-06-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because neither the Federal Tort Claims Act nor the Military Claims Act provided a basis for jurisdiction, and general federal question jurisdiction was precluded.
• Smith v. Schweiker
  709 F.2d 777· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claim because they have not exhausted their administrative remedies as required by the Social Security Act.
• Armstrong v. Elayne A. Armstrong
  696 F.2d 1237· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate a state court divorce decree based on a subsequent change in federal law, as the federal question was merely an anticipated defense.
• Smith v. Lehman
  689 F.2d 342· 2d Cir.· 1982-09-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a probationary federal employee terminated for falsifying an official record was not deprived of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest without due process.
• Lechtner v. Brownyard
  679 F.2d 322· 3d Cir.· 1982-06-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the FCC Personal Attack Rule does not create an implied private cause of action for damages, and therefore, the federal claim fails.
• Leo and Willie Epps v. Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Cntys. Water Improvement Dist. NO. 1
  665 F.2d 594· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the mere fact that a federal court previously entered a judgment recognizing state-created contract rights does not establish federal question jurisdiction for a subsequent suit seeking enforcement of those rights.
• Schultz v. Coral Gables Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  505 F. Supp. 1003· S.D. Fla.· 1981-01-21 ·cited 10×
  Removal of a state law claim to federal court is improper when the basis for federal jurisdiction is the defendant's assertion of federal preemption as a defense.
• Commonwealth OF Va. v. Marshall
  599 F.2d 588· 4th Cir.· 1979-05-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Secretary of Labor's classification of median work as 'heavy' construction for wage determination purposes was reasonable and within his authority, and that the controversy was not moot.
• Am. Invs-Co Countryside, Inc. v. Riverdale Bank
  596 F.2d 211· 7th Cir.· 1979-03-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a dispute between private parties concerning the interpretation of an FHA regulatory agreement, where the FHA's interest is not directly contested, does not arise under federal law for subject matter jurisdiction purposes.
• Vill. Harbor, Inc. v. The United States
  559 F.2d 247· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court properly treated the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment and that no federally protected rights were violated.
• Robert Hoffman and wife v. United States Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  519 F.2d 1160· 5th Cir.· 1975-09-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a three-judge court was not required and that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Schreiber v. Lugar
  518 F.2d 1099· 7th Cir.· 1975-07-14 ·cited 10×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that individual taxpayer claims cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement for federal question jurisdiction, and the civil rights claim was frivolous.
• Miller v. Beda Bauer
  517 F.2d 27· 7th Cir.· 1975-06-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the federal Tax Injunction Act barred the suit because Indiana provided a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy, and the plaintiffs were not instrumentalities of the federal government immune from state taxation.
• Winningham v. United States Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  512 F.2d 617· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-01 ·cited 10×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and that the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, as applied to the plaintiff, did not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process clauses of the Fifth Amendment.
• Michel T. Blouin v. Loyola Univ. & Fr. Bernard Tonnor
  506 F.2d 20· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the private university's actions did not constitute state action, and therefore the federal court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
• Bosely v. City OF Euclid
  496 F.2d 193· 6th Cir.· 1974-05-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the tenants were not denied due process and that the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the City.
• Campbell v. Masur
  486 F.2d 554· 5th Cir.· 1973-10-29 ·cited 10×
  The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of a new Supreme Court decision regarding jurisdiction.
• Garfinkle v. Wells Fargo Bank
  483 F.2d 1074· 9th Cir.· 1973-08-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 and a substantial federal question is presented, but the court should abstain from deciding the case pending resolution of unsettled state law issues in state
• Rider v. Bd. OF Educ. OF Indep. Sch. Dist. NO. 1
  480 F.2d 693· 10th Cir.· 1973-05-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a school's hair regulation, which prohibited long braided hair, did not violate students' constitutional rights, as it was rationally related to a legitimate state objective of maintaining school discipline and spirit.
• Rincon Band OF Mission Indians v. Escondido Mut. Water Co.
  459 F.2d 1082· 9th Cir.· 1972-04-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Attorney General is not required to provide legal representation or security to the plaintiffs due to a conflict of interest, and the appealability of the order is proper under the collateral order doctrine.
• Garren v. City of Winston-Salem
  439 F.2d 140· 4th Cir.· 1971-03-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a claim based solely on the deprivation of property rights, even if framed as an equal protection issue related to extraterritorial zoning without voting rights, is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Powell v. McCORMACK
  395 F.2d 577· D.C. Cir.· 1968-02-28 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding that the House's judgment on the integrity of its legislative performance, based on official misconduct, did not warrant judicial scrutiny.
• City OF Miami v. Woolin
  387 F.2d 893· 5th Cir.· 1968-01-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the zoning ordinance's distance restrictions, as applied to appellees' property, were unconstitutional.
• Lincoln Bank & Tr. Co. v. Exch. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co.
  383 F.2d 694· 10th Cir.· 1967-09-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Exchange Bank's proposed branch facility complied with the Oklahoma statute regarding distance and permitted functions, and that the district court correctly declined to review the Comptroller's approval.
• Merge v. Sharott
  341 F.2d 989· 3d Cir.· 1965-02-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that displaced businesses have no right of action against the federal Administrator for relocation payments, but may have a right of action against the local agency, and a prior state court judgment on the issue bars collateral attack.
• Int'l Harvester Co. v. The City of Kan. City
  308 F.2d 35· 10th Cir.· 1962-08-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that private property owners lack standing under Kansas law to challenge a municipal annexation ordinance, and that the refusal of state officials to bring such an action does not violate federal due process.
• Shelby Cnty. v. Fairway Homes, Inc.
  285 F.2d 617· 6th Cir.· 1961-01-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint did not present a federal question, as it did not allege a dispute over the validity or construction of the federal statute, but merely a disagreement over its application.
• Beal v. Holcombe
  193 F.2d 384· 5th Cir.· 1951-12-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that denying negro citizens the use of municipal golf courses, while allowing white citizens to use them, constitutes forbidden discrimination, even if other park facilities are substantially equal.
• Lansden v. Hart
  180 F.2d 679· 7th Cir.· 1950-02-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while plaintiffs may have alleged sufficient facts to establish federal question jurisdiction regarding the value of their business rights, the hunting ban was a valid exercise of administrative discretion under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and thus they fai
• Geidel v. City of Bradenton Beach
  56 F. Supp. 2d 1359· M.D. Fla.· 1999-06-09 ·cited 9×
  The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that while some claims against individual officers were sufficiently pleaded, others against the City and official capacities were not.