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

• Donohoe Constr. Co., Inc. v. Montgomery Cnty. Council & Montgomery Cnty.
  567 F.2d 603· 4th Cir.· 1977-12-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the facts found by the district court were insufficient to support a finding of a de facto taking of private property without just compensation.
• Gonzalez v. Young
  560 F.2d 160· 3d Cir.· 1977-07-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff's claim, based solely on a conflict between state and federal welfare regulations, did not present a substantial constitutional claim sufficient to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) or (4
• Carothers v. W. Transp. Co.
  554 F.2d 799· 7th Cir.· 1977-04-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' action to recover surcharge revenue was not barred by the statute of limitations for 'orders for the payment of money' and was properly brought under a provision for enforcing ICC orders other than for payment of money, and that the grievance p
• Planning Research Corp. v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  555 F.2d 970· D.C. Cir.· 1977-03-10 ·cited 8×
  The District Court had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to entertain a supplier's suit to prevent an agency from disclosing contract information under FOIA.
• Merchs. Despatch Transp. Corp. v. Sys. Fed'n No. ONE Ry. Emps'. Dep't AFL-CIO Carmen
  551 F.2d 144· 7th Cir.· 1977-03-09 ·cited 8×
  Federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 to review arbitration awards from special boards of adjustment established under the Railway Labor Act.
• Black v. Beame
  550 F.2d 815· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that general statements of goals in federal welfare statutes do not create a private cause of action for individual recipients to challenge the cost-effectiveness of state welfare policies.
• COX v. N. Va. Transp. Comm'n
  551 F.2d 555· 4th Cir.· 1976-11-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that discharging a public employee based on public accusations of dishonesty or immorality without providing a name-clearing hearing violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Camenisch v. United States
  553 F.2d 1271· D.C. Cir.· 1976-10-07 ·cited 8×
• John P. Gallo, M.D. v. Mathews
  534 F.2d 1137· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the Administrative Procedure Act provides a basis for jurisdiction, the case must be dismissed because there was no final agency action to review.
• Enders v. Am. Patent Search Co.
  535 F.2d 1085· 9th Cir.· 1976-02-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that 35 U.S.C. § 33 is not an Act of Congress 'relating to patents' for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1338 jurisdiction. Therefore, federal jurisdiction for claims implied from § 33 requires meeting the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
• The State OF NEW York v. White
  528 F.2d 336· 2d Cir.· 1975-12-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state's complaint, as pleaded, did not establish federal question jurisdiction because it did not necessarily raise an issue of federal law, but allowed amendment.
• McDANIEL v. The Univ. OF Chicago & Argonne
  512 F.2d 583· 7th Cir.· 1975-03-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Davis-Bacon Act, when read in conjunction with the Miller Act and its legislative history, does not confer a private right of action against a contractor for wage underpayments when no payment bond was furnished and no funds were withheld by the government
• Carter v. Duggan
  455 F.2d 1156· 5th Cir.· 1972-02-29 ·cited 8×
  State judges are immune from suit for damages for judicial actions, and a federal court should not compel state judges to act without prior exhaustion of state remedies.
• Ragoni v. United States
  424 F.2d 261· 3d Cir.· 1970-04-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant a declaratory judgment or review the Correction Board's decision, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate arbitrary or capricious action within the administrative record and did not meet jurisdictional requirement
• Euge v. Trantina
  422 F.2d 1070· 8th Cir.· 1970-03-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction.
• Eggerson Fountain v. NEW Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc.
  387 F.2d 343· 5th Cir.· 1967-12-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of federal jurisdiction because the wrongful death action did not arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States.
• Wyandotte Chems. Corp. v. City OF Wyandotte
  321 F.2d 927· 6th Cir.· 1963-08-21 ·cited 8×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The Sixth Circuit held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Michigan law provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for challenging ad valorem tax assessments, thus barring federal intervention under the Johnson Act.
• Marine Cooks & Stewards v. Panama S.S. Co., Ltd.
  265 F.2d 780· 9th Cir.· 1959-04-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the exception to federal question jurisdiction for maritime claims does not apply when the relief sought, like an injunction against a maritime tort, is unknown to admiralty courts.
• Frieda Rader and Paul Rader v. Mfrs. Cas. Ins. Co. OF Philadelphia
  242 F.2d 419· 2d Cir.· 1957-03-05 ·cited 8×
  The appellate court held that the District Court should have dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, not on res judicata grounds, because indispensable parties destroyed diversity jurisdiction.
• M & M Transp. Co. v. City of N.Y.
  186 F.2d 157· 2d Cir.· 1950-12-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed $3,000, as the value of future, contingent taxes could not be reliably calculated.
• Foley v. Asima Azam
  257 So. 3d 1134· Fla. 5th DCA· 2018-10-19 ·cited 7×
  Section 1367(d) tolls the statute of limitations for state law claims dismissed from federal court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, regardless of whether the federal claims were frivolous or lacked plausible foundation. The plain text of the statute does not condition tol
• Grinberg v. Swacina
  478 F. Supp. 2d 1350· S.D. Fla.· 2007-03-20 ·cited 7×
  The court held that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to compel adjudication of immigration status adjustment applications due to statutory preclusion of review for discretionary agency actions, including the pace of processing.
• Scherer v. Laborers'intern. Union of N. Am.
  746 F. Supp. 73· N.D. Fla.· 1988-12-19 ·cited 7×
  The court held that it has federal question jurisdiction over claims arising from the interpretation of contracts between labor organizations, even if the plaintiff is not a party to those contracts. However, a direct contract claim between an individual and a union is a state la
• United States v. Yakima Tribal Court of the Yakima Indian Nation & David Ward
  794 F.2d 1402· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-21 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the tribal court's order was void due to the United States' sovereign immunity and that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin its enforcement.
• Berrios v. Agosto
  716 F.2d 85· 1st Cir.· 1983-09-07 ·cited 7×
  The court held that legislative activities enjoined were protected by common law legislative immunity and no exception applied, thus reversing the district court's order.
• Goodface v. Garfield Grassrope
  708 F.2d 335· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-31 ·cited 7×
  The court held that while the district court had jurisdiction to review the BIA's arbitrary action in refusing to recognize a tribal council, it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the underlying intratribal election dispute.
• Nalore v. SAN Diego Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  663 F.2d 841· 9th Cir.· 1981-09-23 ·cited 7×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that a federal preemption defense does not create federal question jurisdiction for removal purposes when the underlying claim arises solely from state law.
• The Hearth, Inc. v. Dep't OF Pub. Welf.
  617 F.2d 381· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-06 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, affirming the district court's dismissal.
• City OF Palo Alto v. City & Cnty. OF SAN Francisco
  548 F.2d 1374· 9th Cir.· 1977-02-24 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court had federal question jurisdiction and that the Bay Cities have standing to challenge discriminatory water rates under the Raker Act, affirming the injunction on rate increases. However, the claim regarding the transfer of surplus funds was r
• Pac. Trading Co. v. Wilson & Co., Inc.
  547 F.2d 367· 7th Cir.· 1976-11-22 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the cited federal statutes do not create a private right of action for monetary damages, and therefore, the dismissal of claims based on these statutes was proper.
• Scott v. Schlesinger
  498 F.2d 1093· 5th Cir.· 1974-08-16 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a serviceman must exhaust available military remedies, including fact-finding mechanisms and appeals, before seeking habeas corpus relief in federal civilian courts, even when challenging the service-connection of an offense.
• Laycock v. Kenney
  270 F.2d 580· 9th Cir.· 1959-09-01 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Treasury regulations concerning gold are within the statutory authority granted by the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 and that the Act itself is a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to regulate the value of money.
• Stokes v. Adair
  265 F.2d 662· 4th Cir.· 1959-04-08 ·cited 7×
  The United States District Court has jurisdiction over a civil action for injuries occurring on a federal military reservation, as state laws in effect at the time of cession become federal law governing private rights.
• Rodriguez v. Diego's Rest., Inc.
  619 F. Supp. 2d 1345· S.D. Fla.· 2009-04-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that individual or enterprise coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is an element of a plaintiff's claim, not a jurisdictional prerequisite, and that parties are bound by their stipulations regarding such coverage.
• Luton v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.
  88 F. Supp. 2d 1364· S.D. Fla.· 2000-03-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the term 'mental, psychoneurotic or personality disorder' in the disability plan is ambiguous, and construing it against the insurer, plaintiff's interpretation that his depression is physically based is reasonable, entitling him to benefits.
• Self-Insurance Inst. OF Am., Inc. v. Korioth
  993 F.2d 479· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court had general federal question jurisdiction and that the plaintiff association had associational standing to bring the action challenging state insurance code provisions as preempted by ERISA.
• Aquafaith Shipping, Ltd. v. Eufemia R. Jarillas
  963 F.2d 806· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a claim is not removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c) if it is not within federal question jurisdiction, even if it is separate and independent from a non-removable claim. The court also held that a declaratory judgment action should be dismissed when the entire
• Allnet Commc'n Serv., Inc. v. Nat'l Exch. Carrier Ass'n, Inc.
  965 F.2d 1118· D.C. Cir.· 1992-06-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has primary jurisdiction over the dispute concerning access charges and tariff validity, warranting dismissal of the suit.
• Valenti v. Mitchell
  962 F.2d 288· 3d Cir.· 1992-04-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar the district court from hearing constitutional claims by parties who were not participants in the prior state supreme court proceedings, even if those proceedings addressed similar issues.
• United States v. Cyril Plainbull
  957 F.2d 724· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by abstaining from exercising jurisdiction, as comity and the federal policy favoring tribal self-government supported deferring to tribal courts for resolution of disputes involving tribal land.
• Cont'l Cablevision OF ST. Paul, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv.
  945 F.2d 1434· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that 39 U.S.C. § 409(a) provides an independent ground for removal of actions involving the Postal Service and grants federal district courts subject-matter jurisdiction over such cases. The existence of a substantive cause of action is a merits issue, not a jurisd
• Downtown Med. Center/Comprehensive Health Care Clinic v. Bowen
  944 F.2d 756· 10th Cir.· 1991-09-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to review CHC's claim because it challenged the validity of the Medicare Carrier's Manual's criteria, not merely the amount of a specific claim determination.
• Vinieratos v. United States
  939 F.2d 762· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-23 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge believes the EEO complaints were not 'mixed case complaints' and that the complainant exhausted administrative remedies, thus the district court should not have dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Livingston Care Ctr. v. United States
  934 F.2d 719· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-31 ·cited 6×
  Claims for consequential damages arising from wrongful termination of a Medicare provider agreement are precluded by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) as incorporated by 42 U.S.C. § 1395cc(h)(1), and this preclusion does not violate due process.
• Hamilton Stores, Inc. v. Hodel
  925 F.2d 1272· 10th Cir.· 1991-02-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that summary judgment for the government was appropriate because the services awarded to TWS were not 'new or additional' and thus did not trigger HSI's preferential right.
• Boyle v. The Governor's Veterans Outreach & Assistance Ctr.
  925 F.2d 71· 3d Cir.· 1991-01-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the dismissal of an employee by a federally funded organization was not state action, and therefore not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because the organization's relationship with the state was too tenuous.
• Dunbar Corp. v. Lindsey
  905 F.2d 754· 4th Cir.· 1990-06-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim and the Bivens claim, finding that Dunbar had alleged a valid cause of action in trespass under North Carolina law and a constitutionally protected possessory interest for the Bive
• Ulmet v. United States
  888 F.2d 1028· 4th Cir.· 1989-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over the appellant's claim for interlocutory equitable relief, affirming the dismissal.
• Duran v. Garrey Carruthers
  885 F.2d 1485· 10th Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motion to vacate parts of the consent decree, affirming the lower court's decision.
• Thorstenn v. Barnard
  883 F.2d 217· 3d Cir.· 1989-08-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for services rendered in the district court, court of appeals, and Supreme Court, but fees against the Virgin Islands Bar Association are denied.