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

• Sanders v. Robinson
  864 F.2d 630· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-30 ·cited 6×
  The tribal court has jurisdiction over a non-Indian defendant in a divorce and custody proceeding when the couple resided on the reservation during the marriage, and federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the limits of tribal court jurisdiction.
• ANR Pipeline Co. v. The Corp. Comm'n OF the State OF Okla.
  860 F.2d 1571· 10th Cir.· 1988-11-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Oklahoma's ratable take statute and implementing regulation are preempted by federal law, and the district court properly exercised jurisdiction.
• J. Filiberto Sanitation, Inc. v. State OF NEW Jersey Dep't OF Env't Prot. & Bd. of Pub. Utils.
  857 F.2d 913· 3d Cir.· 1988-09-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the New Jersey regulation requiring solid waste collected in Hunterdon County to be deposited at the county's transfer station does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause.
• Marozsan v. The United States & the Veterans' Admin.
  852 F.2d 1469· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-25 ·cited 6×
  The court should vacate the judgment and dismiss the complaint due to lack of jurisdiction over the damages claim.
• Med. Malpractice Joint Underwriting Ass'n OF R.I. v. Pfeiffer
  832 F.2d 240· 1st Cir.· 1987-11-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining from adjudicating a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute, as such direct challenges are not subject to abstention doctrines when no state proceedings are pending.
• Trentacosta v. Frontier Pac. Aircraft Indus., Inc.
  813 F.2d 1553· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the Jones Act claims against defendants other than Aero Dinámico for lack of an employer relationship, but erred in denying leave to amend the complaint to allege admiralty jurisdiction for other claims.
• Ben-Shalom v. Secretary OF the Army
  807 F.2d 982· Fed. Cir.· 1986-12-18 ·cited 6×
  This court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's jurisdiction was based on statutes granting equitable relief (mandamus), not the Tucker Act, which applies to claims for money damages.
• Gower v. Lehman
  799 F.2d 925· 4th Cir.· 1986-09-04 ·cited 6×
  A district court's order transferring a case to the Claims Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, based on a finding of lack of jurisdiction, is a final and appealable order.
• Thompson v. Merrell DOW Pharms., Inc.
  766 F.2d 1005· 6th Cir.· 1985-07-15 ·cited 6×
  Actions removed to federal court based on a state law claim that cited a federal statute as evidence of negligence are improperly removed, as they do not present a federal question.
• Truckee-Carson Irrigation Dist. v. Sec'y OF Dep't OF Interior
  742 F.2d 527· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that TCID's claim of a property right in water was unfounded, and the Secretary properly terminated its contract for violating operating criteria, without violating due process.
• Gonsalves v. Amoco Shipping Co.
  733 F.2d 1020· 2d Cir.· 1984-05-01 ·cited 6×
  A maintenance and cure claim is not sufficiently separate and independent from a Jones Act claim arising from the same operative facts to permit removal of the entire action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).
• Allison v. Liberty Savings
  695 F.2d 1086· 7th Cir.· 1982-12-27 ·cited 6×
  The court should rehear en banc a case concerning whether a private damage action can be implied under section 10 of RESPA for mortgage escrow overcharges.
• COX v. Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs, AFL-CIO
  672 F.2d 421· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court lacked original jurisdiction because the defamation claim did not arise under federal law, despite the parties' union affiliation.
• Johnston v. Citizens Bank & Tr. Co. OF Flippin
  659 F.2d 865· 8th Cir.· 1981-09-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a loan guaranty fee, charged and later refunded to the borrower, did not constitute usurious interest under Arkansas law because it was intended for reimbursement to a third party (SBA) and not as profit for the lender. The court also found no grounds for recu
• Pitrone v. Police Officer Louis J. Mercadante
  572 F.2d 98· 3d Cir.· 1978-02-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to exercise pendent jurisdiction over state law claims against a municipality when an independent basis for federal jurisdiction existed.
• Shelton v. United States Customs Serv. & Russell D. Wrenn
  565 F.2d 1140· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-13 ·cited 6×
  Federal agencies cannot be sued in their own name without explicit Congressional authorization, and law enforcement agents are protected by qualified immunity if their actions were appropriate and taken in good faith.
• Morris v. Danna
  547 F.2d 436· 8th Cir.· 1977-01-13 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the invasion of privacy claim did not rise to constitutional dimensions and lacked federal question jurisdiction.
• Mathis v. Opportunities Industrialization Ctrs., Inc.
  545 F.2d 97· 9th Cir.· 1976-11-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the relationship between the Federal Government and O.I.C. was substantial enough to consider O.I.C.'s actions as governmental actions subject to Fifth Amendment due process requirements.
• Holley v. Abe Lavine
  529 F.2d 1294· 2d Cir.· 1976-02-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, as the constitutional claims were not wholly insubstantial or frivolous. The court also noted that statutory and regulatory claims could be considered by the district judge.
• Yancoskie v. Del. River Port Auth.
  528 F.2d 722· 3d Cir.· 1975-12-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's cause of action did not arise under federal law and there was no diversity of citizenship.
• Friedlander v. Joseph Cimino, M.D.
  520 F.2d 318· 2d Cir.· 1975-07-09 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged purposeful discrimination to establish a substantial federal question, thus reversing the dismissal.
• Moore v. Betit
  511 F.2d 1004· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the lower court erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction based on speculative damages, and that the case should be remanded for further consideration of the amount in controversy, particularly regarding the 'trust fund' theory.
• Armstrong v. Maple Leaf Apts., Ltd.
  508 F.2d 518· 10th Cir.· 1974-12-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federal court injunction should have been issued to prohibit Oklahoma probate court proceedings seeking retroactive approval of a deed from an Indian grantor, as the state court cannot approve a conveyance over the grantor's objection.
• Mrs. Concha Lopez v. Luginbill
  483 F.2d 486· 10th Cir.· 1973-08-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the appellees failed to establish a cause of action under the Civil Rights Act or demonstrate the required jurisdictional amount, and no implied civil remedy exists for PAC members under Title I.
• Gibson v. Jeffers
  478 F.2d 216· 10th Cir.· 1973-05-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege facts to establish the jurisdictional amount required for federal court jurisdiction, even after multiple amendments.
• Mountain Fuel Supply Co. v. Emory C. Smith and Verland E. Smith
  471 F.2d 594· 10th Cir.· 1973-01-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while surface owners can object to mineral lessees using their land for operations on other tracts, the defendants' surface lands, held in common ownership, constitute a single tract for this purpose. The court also held that the trial court had jurisdiction.
• City OF Boston v. Mass. Port Auth.
  444 F.2d 167· 1st Cir.· 1971-06-21 ·cited 6×
  A mere violation of state law by a state official does not, by itself, constitute a violation of the federal Constitution's due process clause.
• Cabana Mgmt., Inc. v. Hyatt Corp.
  441 F.2d 862· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the complaint did not present a substantial federal question, thus affirming the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Adelt v. Richmond Sch. Dist.
  439 F.2d 718· 9th Cir.· 1971-03-09 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction, as the claim was a state law contract dispute and not a federal question.
• Runette Turner v. Thompson
  421 F.2d 771· 5th Cir.· 1970-02-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a denial of procedural due process when her beer license was rescinded pending a public hearing.
• Marydale Prods. Co., Inc. v. United Packinghouse Workers of Am., Afl-Cio
  322 F.2d 224· 5th Cir.· 1963-09-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, as claims involving unfair labor practices under the NLRA are within the exclusive purview of the National Labor Relations Board.
• Duplisea v. Maine Central Railroad
  260 F.2d 495· 1st Cir.· 1958-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction because the Railway Labor Act vests exclusive jurisdiction for wrongful discharge claims in the National Railroad Adjustment Board, not the courts.
• Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc. v. Angus H. Taylor
  227 F.2d 162· 8th Cir.· 1955-11-15 ·cited 6×
  A single-judge district court cannot dismiss a case requiring a three-judge panel over plaintiff's objection, and may abstain from deciding federal constitutional issues if a state law question remains unresolved.
• Currie v. Flack
  190 F.2d 549· 1st Cir.· 1951-06-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 does not grant federal district courts jurisdiction over tenant suits for damages unless the amount in controversy exceeds $3,000.
• State of Ga. v. Wenger
  187 F.2d 285· 7th Cir.· 1951-02-23 ·cited 6×
  A state cannot create a federal cause of action for damages based on the Twenty-first Amendment or the Webb-Kenyon Act when the underlying claim is for the collection of state taxes.
• E. Coast Lumber Terminal, Inc. v. Town of Babylon
  174 F.2d 106· 2d Cir.· 1949-04-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in abstaining from deciding the federal constitutional questions until state courts had an opportunity to interpret the ordinance and state law.
• Beckford v. Sky Grp. USA, LLC
  2014 WL 931010· M.D. Fla.· 2023-02-27 ·cited 5×
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for default judgment because the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead the elements of her FDCPA and FCCPA claims, specifically regarding the nature of the debt and the applicability of the FDCPA to the defendant.
• Grills v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
  645 F. Supp. 2d 1107· M.D. Fla.· 2009-08-04 ·cited 5×
  The court held that while some claims might be preempted, the plaintiff's fraud and fraudulent concealment claims, based on a duty not to deceive, are not preempted by federal law and may proceed if properly pleaded. The court also found the plaintiff failed to properly allege di
• ABC Charters, Inc. v. Bronson
  591 F. Supp. 2d 1272· S.D. Fla.· 2008-10-01 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Florida Sellers of Travel Act Amendments likely violate the Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause, and denied the motion to dismiss.
• Smartt v. First Union Nat'l Bank
  245 F. Supp. 2d 1229· M.D. Fla.· 2003-01-29 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granted the defendants' motion for attorney's fees and costs due to vexatious litigation.
• Ware v. United States
  971 F. Supp. 1442· M.D. Fla.· 1997-07-21 ·cited 5×
  The court found in favor of the Government, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove malicious continuation of prosecution.
• Clark v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
  778 F. Supp. 1209· S.D. Fla.· 1991-11-13 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Warsaw Convention does not provide an exclusive cause of action, and therefore, a plaintiff's complaint alleging state law claims, without raising a federal question, does not confer federal removal jurisdiction.
• Boarhead Corp. v. Erickson
  923 F.2d 1011· 3d Cir.· 1991-01-16 ·cited 5×
  The court held that CERCLA's jurisdictional limitations under § 113(h) preclude district courts from hearing claims challenging EPA pre-cleanup activities, even if those claims arise under other federal statutes like the Preservation Act.
• Dillon v. Combs
  895 F.2d 1175· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that there is no federal question jurisdiction because the Product Liability Risk Retention Act does not create a private right of action for states to enforce its provisions in federal court.
• Defenders OF Wildlife v. Adm'r, Env't Prot. Agency
  882 F.2d 1294· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-16 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) citizen suit provision allows plaintiffs to sue the EPA for violations, and that the EPA's strychnine registrations constituted illegal takings. However, claims under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird
• News & Sun-Sentinel Co. v. Cox
  702 F. Supp. 891· S.D. Fla.· 1988-12-19 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Florida Statute § 337.406, as written, is an unconstitutional restriction on First Amendment rights because it is overbroad and not narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. The court also denied claims regarding the Sunshine Act and tort
• Joint Bd. OF Control OF the Flathead v. United States
  862 F.2d 195· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-29 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Joint Board failed to exhaust its administrative remedies by not participating in the BIA's comment period or administrative appeal process before filing suit.
• Jupiter Wreck, Inc. v. the Unidentified
  691 F. Supp. 1377· S.D. Fla.· 1988-07-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars the resolution of title to the res in federal court without state consent, thus a preliminary injunction cannot issue in the in rem action. The removed state law action must be remanded.
• Monks v. Clark Hetherington
  573 F.2d 1164· 10th Cir.· 1978-03-30 ·cited 5×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action seeking to establish a defense to a state law claim, even if that defense arises under federal law.
• E. AIR Lines, Inc. v. Flight Eng'rs Int'l Ass'n
  340 F.2d 104· 5th Cir.· 1965-01-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a strike not expressly prohibited by the Railway Labor Act and not requiring interpretation of the Act for a breach of contract claim does not present a federal question, thus federal jurisdiction is lacking.