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

• Ky. Laborers Dist. Council Health & Welf. Fund v. Hope
  861 F.2d 1003· 6th Cir.· 1988-11-25 ·cited 9×
  The court held that even if jurisdiction was lacking under ERISA's specific enforcement provision, the district court had federal question jurisdiction because the state law claims were preempted by ERISA.
• Superior OIL Co. v. The United States
  798 F.2d 1324· 10th Cir.· 1986-08-13 ·cited 9×
  The court held that federal district courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review tribal court decisions concerning jurisdiction, but require exhaustion of tribal remedies first, unless bad faith or futility is shown.
• Nat'l Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe OF Indians
  736 F.2d 1320· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-03 ·cited 9×
  A federal court cannot entertain a civil suit seeking to enjoin a tribal court's exercise of jurisdiction, as federal law limits such review to habeas corpus.
• ST. Louis Union Tr. Co. v. Stone
  570 F.2d 833· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-21 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the District Court had federal question jurisdiction over the interpleader action concerning federal tax liens, but properly dismissed Stone's breach of contract claim exceeding the Tucker Act's jurisdictional limit.
• United States & Mortimer Todel v. Franklin Nat'l Bank
  512 F.2d 245· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-24 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York lacked jurisdiction over the action because the receiver, appointed in the Southern District, could not sue in another district without an independent jurisdictional basis, and the United St
• Bromley-Heath Modernization Comm. v. Boston Hous. Auth.
  459 F.2d 1067· 1st Cir.· 1972-05-10 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the HUD circular was advisory, not mandatory, and affirmed the dismissal of claims based on it. It also affirmed summary judgment for the defendants on equal protection claims.
• Wilson v. Hearos, LLC
  128 F.4th 1254· 11th Cir.· 2025-02-18 ·cited 8×
  Removal by a non-party is a waivable procedural defect, not a jurisdictional one, and the court must apply state law regarding statutes of limitations and service of process after removal in a diversity case.
• Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Access Telecom, Inc.
  642 F. Supp. 2d 1354· S.D. Fla.· 2009-07-24 ·cited 8×
  The court denied all motions to dismiss and strike, finding that the plaintiff adequately pleaded its claims and that subject matter jurisdiction was proper.
• Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  576 F. Supp. 2d 1328· M.D. Fla.· 2008-08-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar federal jurisdiction and that the Engle Phase I findings can only have issue preclusive effect, not claim preclusive effect, because they did not establish liability.
• Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc. v. McImetro Access Transmission Servs., Inc.
  317 F.3d 1270· 11th Cir.· 2003-01-10 ·cited 8×
  The Eleventh Circuit, in a dissenting opinion, argued that federal district courts lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(6) to review the Georgia Public Service Commission's (GPSC) order regarding reciprocal compensation for ISP-bound calls. The dissen
• Abbey v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  978 F.2d 37· 2d Cir.· 1992-09-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the 1986 Amendments to the Medicare Act now channel Part B disputes through the Social Security Act's administrative and judicial review process, precluding federal question jurisdiction and requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies.
• Ceres Gulf and Esis/INA v. Cleaster Cooper
  957 F.2d 1199· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the employer's action to recover advance payments under the LHWCA, and that the Director should have been permitted to intervene.
• Burda v. M. Ecker Co.
  954 F.2d 434· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the worker's claim challenging federal tax withholding was properly removed to federal court and dismissed for failure to state a claim, but remanded the issue of sanctions for reconsideration.
• W. Sec. Co. v. Derwinski
  937 F.2d 1276· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Veterans' Administration's missed deadline for notifying Western to preserve personal liability did not invalidate the loan guaranty because Western suffered no harm from the delay.
• Feltman v. Prudential Bache Securities
  122 B.R. 466· S.D. Fla.· 1990-12-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that neither the bankruptcy trustee nor the creditors' committee has standing to bring claims that belong to specific creditors of the estate, particularly when the alleged injuries to the debtor corporations are illusory or derivative of the creditors' injuries.
• Native Vill. OF Venetie I.R.A. Council v. State OF Alaska
  918 F.2d 797· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal law requires Alaska to accord full faith and credit to child-custody determinations made by the tribal courts of native villages, and that these villages can invoke federal jurisdiction under the Indian Child Welfare Act.
• In re the Complaint of Three Buoys Houseboat Vacations U.S.A., Ltd. v. Morts
  878 F.2d 1096· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Limitation of Liability Act does not provide an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction and its territorial application is limited to navigable waters for admiralty purposes.
• McLaughlin v. Pernsley
  876 F.2d 308· 3d Cir.· 1989-05-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Catholic Social Services lacked standing to appeal the preliminary injunction, and that the Williamses, as intervenors, had standing to appeal only regarding the remedy. The court affirmed the district court's grant of a mandatory preliminary injunction orderi
• Port Drum Co. v. Umphrey
  852 F.2d 148· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-16 ·cited 8×
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 does not grant federal courts subject matter jurisdiction for private causes of action to enforce its provisions, nor does the Declaratory Judgment Act provide such jurisdiction.
• Nat'l Ass'n of Cntys. v. Baker
  842 F.2d 369· D.C. Cir.· 1988-03-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction but erred in ordering the disbursement of sequestered Revenue Sharing Trust Funds, as the Revenue Sharing Act is not a compensation-mandating statute and the funds were permanently cancelled as FY 1986 budgetary resources.
• Plaquemines Port v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n & United States
  838 F.2d 536· D.C. Cir.· 1988-02-02 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the FMC's order, holding that the Port's actions constituted furnishing terminal facilities, thus establishing FMC jurisdiction, and that the tariff did not violate the tonnage clause.
• Miller v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co.
  834 F.2d 556· 6th Cir.· 1987-11-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the defamation claim on the merits and in asserting federal question jurisdiction, vacating the judgment and remanding for further proceedings to clarify factual uncertainties regarding preemption.
• Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Murrey & Son's Co. Inc.
  824 F.2d 740· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Shipping Act of 1916 provides carriers with an implied private cause of action to collect freight charges imposed by a tariff, and that the bill of lading contractually obligated the shipper for attorneys' fees incurred in collection.
• Blassingame v. Secretary OF the Navy
  811 F.2d 65· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-26 ·cited 8×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the right to judicial review of a Correction Board decision accrues at the time of the Board's decision, not the original discharge, and that the district court improperly granted summary judgment without fair notice.
• Eubanks v. O.L. McCOTTER
  802 F.2d 790· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the inmates' federal claims were not immaterial or frivolous, thus the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Tenn. Dep't OF Emp. Sec. v. Secretary OF Labor
  801 F.2d 170· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) commits judicial review of the Secretary's decision to deny further CETA/JTPA funds to the courts of appeals, not the district court.
• Richendollar v. Diamond M Drilling Co., Inc.
  784 F.2d 580· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove a cause of action under § 905(b) against the employer for negligence, as the negligence was that of a fellow employee and not imputable to the vessel owner as a separate entity.
• Am. Television & Commc'ns Corp. v. Floken, Ltd.
  629 F. Supp. 1462· M.D. Fla.· 1986-02-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a cable television distributor has standing under 47 U.S.C. § 605 to sue hotels that intercept and retransmit subscription programming signals intended for the distributor, as this constitutes an injury redressable by the court.
• Saramar Aluminum Co. v. Pension Plan FOR Emps. OF the Aluminum Indus. & Allied Indus. OF Youngstown Ohio Metro. Area
  782 F.2d 577· 6th Cir.· 1986-01-27 ·cited 8×
  The court should have premised jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as ERISA actions arise under federal common law.
• Hatcher v. Heckler
  772 F.2d 427· 8th Cir.· 1985-09-04 ·cited 8×
  The federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims challenging Part B Medicare benefit determinations, even if framed as due process violations, due to statutory preclusion under 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).
• Bell & Beckwith v. United States
  766 F.2d 910· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction was lacking because the central dispute, the ownership of the investment account, was a matter of state law, even though it was relevant to a federal tax lien.
• Mich. Acad. OF Fam. Physicians v. Blue Cross AND Blue Shield OF Michigan and Richard S. Schweiker
  757 F.2d 91· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler v. Ringer did not preclude judicial review for Medicare providers challenging a regulation, reaffirming its prior decision that federal question jurisdiction exists.
• Michels v. United States Olympic Comm.
  741 F.2d 155· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Amateur Sports Act does not provide for private enforcement and the USOC's duty to resolve disputes is limited to those involving its members.
• Hart v. Pulte Homes OF Mich. Corp.
  735 F.2d 1001· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the sale and lease-back of model homes did not constitute investment contracts under federal securities laws because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate investment in a common enterprise.
• Duane v. Haas
  725 F.2d 71· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-12 ·cited 8×
  A corporation violates SEC Rule 14a-7 if it makes a shareholder's proxy materials false by changing the meeting date to frustrate the shareholder's mailing, and the shareholder can recover damages.
• United States v. Perry
  706 F.2d 278· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 8×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the Perrys' counterclaims were barred by sovereign immunity and affirmed the district court's dismissal.
• Mercer v. Birchman
  700 F.2d 828· 2d Cir.· 1983-02-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that their claims did not warrant mandamus jurisdiction because the administrative process ultimately corrected the alleged procedural errors.
• Wood v. Sargeant
  694 F.2d 1159· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-17 ·cited 8×
  A taxpayer's inability to pay a state tax does not render the state's 'pay and sue' refund remedy inefficient, thus the federal Tax Injunction Act bars federal court jurisdiction.
• Schulthess v. United States
  694 F.2d 175· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-06 ·cited 8×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction over the appellant's claim for back pay exceeding $10,000, and the dependent annuity adjustment claim, requiring reversal of the dismissal and transfer to the Claims Court.
• Herzog v. Secretary OF Health
  686 F.2d 1154· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-09 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the action, holding that the constitutional claims raised by the appellants were too insubstantial to establish federal question jurisdiction.
• Div. 587, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO v. Municipality OF Metro. Seattle
  663 F.2d 875· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a § 13(c) agreement provision for interest arbitration is enforceable under federal law, and that Washington state law does not prohibit such arbitration.
• Theriault v. The Honorable Joseph E. Brennan
  641 F.2d 28· 1st Cir.· 1981-02-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state did not violate the federal program's maintenance of effort requirement by not implementing a supplemental heating assistance program when federal funding increased sufficiently to cover the need.
• United States & United States ex rel. Sec'y v. Hon. Milbern J. Adams
  634 F.2d 1261· 10th Cir.· 1980-11-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a claim for contract damages exceeding $10,000 against the United States, even if involving HUD, falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, thus the federal district court properly enjoined state court proceedings.
• FRY Bros. Corp. v. The Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  614 F.2d 732· 10th Cir.· 1980-02-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a justiciable claim and that the Administrative Procedure Act does not create an independent basis for jurisdiction.
• Vern F. Chumney and Marjorie Ann Chumney v. Nixon
  615 F.2d 389· 6th Cir.· 1980-01-24 ·cited 8×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that a civil cause of action for damages can be implied from federal criminal statutes designed to protect passengers on aircraft, even if the statutes only explicitly provide criminal penalties.
• Jerlian Watch Co., Inc. v. United States Dep't OF Commerce & United States Dep't of the Interior
  597 F.2d 687· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for want of jurisdiction because the challenged allocation rules are substantially related to traditional customs purposes and plaintiffs have an adequate remedy in the Customs Court.
• Hosp. SAN Jorge, Inc. v. United States Secretary OF Health
  598 F.2d 684· 1st Cir.· 1979-05-17 ·cited 8×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction was barred by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) and that the hospital's constitutional claims lacked merit or were procedurally barred.
• Laden v. Andrus
  595 F.2d 482· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-02 ·cited 8×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the Department of Interior properly determined the land was mineral in character and the purchaser was not an innocent purchaser for value, thus denying the patent application.
• Local 2047 v. Def. Gen. Supply Ctr.
  573 F.2d 184· 4th Cir.· 1978-03-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the employer's refusal to disclose employee personnel data was justified by the Privacy Act and its regulations, as the requested information was not a 'routine use' without employee consent.
• State OF NEW Mexico ex rel. S. E. Reynolds v. Molybdenum Corp. OF Am.
  570 F.2d 1364· 10th Cir.· 1978-02-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the State Engineer's conditions on water use, including acreage limitations, were binding on Molycorp because they were pertinent to preventing impairment of existing rights and Molycorp failed to appeal or properly challenge them.