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

• Hancock v. Target Corp.
  2021 WL 1541511· M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the parties' pleadings failed to adequately establish diversity jurisdiction due to insufficient allegations of citizenship for individuals and entities.
• Sensormatic Elecs. Corp. v. Tag Co. US, LLC
  632 F. Supp. 2d 1147· S.D. Fla.· 2008-12-19 ·cited 4×
  The court found that the defendants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted patent claims were inherently anticipated or barred by prior sale. The court also found that the defendants stipulated to infringement.
• Thomas v. Admin. Comm. of the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  210 F. Supp. 2d 1296· M.D. Fla.· 2002-04-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Plaintiff's state law claims were completely preempted by ERISA, establishing federal question jurisdiction and denying the motion to remand.
• Hayduk v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
  930 F. Supp. 584· S.D. Fla.· 1996-04-25 ·cited 4×
  A third-party defendant may remove a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c) if the third-party complaint states a separate and independent claim that could have been brought in federal court alone, and the court may permit amendment of the removal notice to add § 1441(c) as a basis.
• Taxpayers United FOR Assessment Cuts v. Austin
  994 F.2d 291· 6th Cir.· 1993-06-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while a state creating an initiative procedure must adhere to constitutional limits, Michigan's specific procedures for verifying petition signatures did not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments.
• Am. Policyholders Ins. Co. v. Nyacol Prods., Inc.
  989 F.2d 1256· 1st Cir.· 1993-02-24 ·cited 4×
  A suit against a federal officer solely in their official capacity is not removable to federal court under the officer removal statute (28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)) because it is considered a suit against the agency, which cannot remove under that statute.
• Bobula v. United States Dep't OF Just.
  970 F.2d 854· Fed. Cir.· 1992-07-14 ·cited 4×
  Ms. Bobula's remedy, if any, lies within the Civil Service Reform Act or internal grievance procedures, not direct judicial enforcement of her settlement agreement.
• Concerned Citizens OF Neb. (CCN) v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n (NRC)
  970 F.2d 421· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over statutory challenges to NRC regulations, but had jurisdiction over constitutional claims. The court affirmed the dismissal of Supremacy Clause, Ninth Amendment, and Equal Protection claims.
• Clark v. Busey
  959 F.2d 808· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's suit, and therefore, could not award attorney's fees and costs under the EAJA, as the exclusive jurisdiction for reviewing the FAA's actions lay with the court of appeals.
• Tamiami P'rs, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians
  788 F. Supp. 566· S.D. Fla.· 1992-03-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while it had jurisdiction, it would abstain from exercising it pending exhaustion of tribal remedies, and therefore stayed the federal action.
• Native Vill. OF Venetie I.R.A. Council v. State OF Alaska
  944 F.2d 548· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-12 ·cited 4×
  The Ninth Circuit held that federal courts have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims and that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) provides a federal cause of action for tribes and individuals to enforce its provisions, including the full faith and credit clause for tribal cou
• Bahr v. Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc.
  763 F. Supp. 584· S.D. Fla.· 1991-05-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims did not present a substantial federal question, and therefore, the removal to federal court was improper.
• Okla. City Assocs. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  923 F.2d 791· 10th Cir.· 1991-01-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires an explicit agreement within the arbitration clause for a federal court to have subject matter jurisdiction to confirm an award, and this requirement can be raised for the first time on appeal.
• Native Vill. OF Tyonek v. Puckett
  890 F.2d 1054· 9th Cir.· 1989-11-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a village's attempt to apply its ordinance to non-members creates a federal question, granting federal courts subject matter jurisdiction.
• Moma Louise Armstrong v. T.O. Adams
  869 F.2d 410· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the former election officials lacked standing to appeal the settlement because they failed to demonstrate plain legal prejudice from their dismissal and the district court had jurisdiction to approve the settlement.
• AGG v. Hon. Timothy M. Flanagan
  855 F.2d 336· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-25 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge would remand the case to the district court for consideration of claim preclusion, and would not reach the merits of the appeal.
• Millers Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Axel's Express, Inc.
  851 F.2d 267· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-01 ·cited 4×
  A federal district court does not have federal-question jurisdiction over a dispute between two insurance companies regarding coverage allocation, even if the underlying accident involves an interstate motor carrier regulated by federal law, if federal law does not create a priva
• Therese U. Donnelly v. United States
  850 F.2d 1313· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Donnellys' claims against the United States were barred by the statute of limitations under the Quiet Title Act, and that claims against Eklutna, Inc. were barred due to the United States' indispensable party status. Claims under ANCSA and constructive tru
• Werner R. Staacke v. United States Secretary OF Labor
  841 F.2d 278· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Federal Employees' Compensation Act's § 8128(b) bars judicial review of the Secretary of Labor's decision regarding disability payments, and the appellant failed to demonstrate a clear statutory mandate violation.
• Martinez v. United States Olympic Comm.
  802 F.2d 1275· 10th Cir.· 1986-10-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding no diversity jurisdiction due to improper joinder of a representative to create diversity, and no federal question jurisdiction as the complaint failed to sta
• Nw. S.D. Prod. Credit Ass'n v. Gilford L. Smith and Viola A. Smith
  784 F.2d 323· 8th Cir.· 1986-02-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the district court had jurisdiction to determine if a federal claim was stated, 25 U.S.C. § 483a does not create a federal cause of action for mortgage foreclosure on Indian trust lands, thus the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could
• Lafe W. Wilson and Cherie Wilson v. Mason State Bank
  738 F.2d 343· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-09 ·cited 4×
  The Emergency Agricultural Credit Adjustment Act of 1978 does not create or imply a private cause of action for a lender's alleged violation of its regulations, and therefore federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over such claims.
• Hughes-Bechtol, Inc. v. W. Va. Bd. OF Regents
  737 F.2d 540· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the West Virginia Board of Regents is an arm or agency of the State of West Virginia, not a citizen, thus precluding diversity jurisdiction, and that the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide the Eleventh Amendment issue.
• Food Town Stores, Inc. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n
  708 F.2d 920· 4th Cir.· 1983-05-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the EEOC's regulation is valid and does not conflict with the statute, and that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
• Ostroff v. State
  554 F. Supp. 347· M.D. Fla.· 1983-01-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims for damages arising from the termination of Social Security benefits, due to the Social Security Act's limitations and Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
• Rogers v. United States
  697 F.2d 886· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Department of the Interior breached its trust duties by failing to promulgate regulations for adequate notice as required by the Distribution of Judgment Funds Act, and thus applications could not be rejected solely on grounds of lateness.
• United States v. Hill
  694 F.2d 258· D.C. Cir.· 1982-11-09 ·cited 4×
  Section 645 of the Department of Energy Organization Act does not confer subject matter jurisdiction or extraterritorial service of process power on district courts for DOE subpoena enforcement proceedings.
• Schiff v. Kennedy
  691 F.2d 196· 4th Cir.· 1982-10-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the divorce settlement's release barred the suit against the former wife, but the dismissal of the action against John Doe was improper and should be remanded for further consideration.
• SAN Juan Legal Servs., Inc. v. Legal Servs. Corp.
  655 F.2d 434· 1st Cir.· 1981-07-16 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the Legal Services Corporation had grounds to terminate funding for San Juan Legal Services due to program deficiencies and procedural fairness, and that San Juan was entitled to judicial review.
• S. SOG, Inc. v. Roland
  644 F.2d 376· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-04 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the federal district court had jurisdiction over Southern Sog's claim to the HUD escrow fund, but claims against HUD officials acting within their scope of employment were barred by sovereign immunity.
• Parker v. Merlino
  646 F.2d 848· 3d Cir.· 1981-04-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Senate's rule allowing a majority to cut off debate is constitutional and its application in this case did not violate the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights.
• Hayes v. The Memphis Police Dep't
  634 F.2d 350· 6th Cir.· 1980-11-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's additional findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, supporting the officer's use of deadly force.
• Fenster v. Schneider
  636 F.2d 765· D.C. Cir.· 1980-11-26 ·cited 4×
  The District of Columbia School Transit Subsidy Act's residency requirement is constitutional, as it rationally serves the District's legitimate governmental interest in providing educational services to its own residents.
• Iron Arrow Honor Soc'y v. Hufstedler
  499 F. Supp. 496· S.D. Fla.· 1980-08-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the H.E.W. regulation prohibiting federal funding recipients from providing significant assistance to discriminatory organizations was a valid interpretation of Title IX and applied to the University of Miami's relationship with the male-only Iron Arrow Honor
• United States v. Bragg
  493 F. Supp. 470· M.D. Fla.· 1980-06-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the statute of limitations bars the government's claim for Medicare overpayments made before April 30, 1970, for services rendered in 1967-1969, but the issue of limitations for 1970 payments remains for trial.
• Shamie v. City OF Pontiac
  620 F.2d 118· 6th Cir.· 1980-04-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff, as a first-time liquor license applicant, did not possess a property interest protected by due process, even with a court-ordered agreement for reasons for denial. The court also found no merit in claims of equal protection or right to petition
• Lopez v. Arraras
  606 F.2d 347· 1st Cir.· 1979-10-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the case must be remanded because of serious doubts concerning the district court's jurisdiction and because HUD is a necessary party for proper resolution.
• Smith v. Washington
  593 F.2d 1097· D.C. Cir.· 1978-08-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the record did not permit a finding to a legal certainty that the jurisdictional amount was not satisfied, thus affirming the result.
• Inland OIL & Transp. Co. v. Brock Adams (previously William T. Coleman
  575 F.2d 184· 8th Cir.· 1978-04-24 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims became moot after the barges were certified and sold to third parties, rendering the controversy with the federal defendants nonexistent and the controversy with the builder pending elsewhere.
• Robert and Angeles O'Grady v. City OF Montpelier
  573 F.2d 747· 2d Cir.· 1978-03-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, as the factual record was insufficient to determine the constitutional questions presented.
• Buck v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF the City OF NEW York
  553 F.2d 315· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-20 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the plaintiff was denied due process by not receiving the examiner's report and an opportunity to respond before the Board's final decision.
• Ellis v. United States Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  551 F.2d 13· 3d Cir.· 1977-02-24 ·cited 4×
  Tenants of non-subsidized § 220 housing are not entitled to a hearing prior to HUD approval of a rental increase requested by their landlord.
• Guesnon v. McHENRY
  539 F.2d 1075· 5th Cir.· 1976-10-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a private cause of action cannot be implied from the HUD regulation at issue, and the case should be remanded to allow for HUD's participation.
• Econ. Opportunity Comm'n OF Nassau Cnty., Inc. v. Casper Weinberger
  524 F.2d 393· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the administrative proceedings were not a nullity despite HEW's failure to formally prescribe procedures, as NCEOC was not prejudiced and received adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. The court also affirmed HEW's authority to directly fund GCD.
• The Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Martinez
  519 F.2d 479· 10th Cir.· 1975-07-09 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that a simple breach of contract action brought by an Indian tribe does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, and thus the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1362.
• The Atchison v. Locals NOS. 70
  511 F.2d 1193· 9th Cir.· 1975-02-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims because the National Labor Relations Act preemption doctrine barred federal court jurisdiction for conduct arguably prohibited or protected by the Act, and statutory exceptions did not apply.
• Texaco Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  481 F.2d 70· 10th Cir.· 1973-07-13 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  A claim based on contract, even if indirectly related to federal law or requiring reference to federal agency rates, does not arise under federal law for jurisdictional purposes.
• Burks v. Perk
  470 F.2d 163· 6th Cir.· 1972-11-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the District Court erred in enjoining the Mayor from conducting a hearing on charges against Civil Service Commissioners, as state law provided adequate remedies.
• Bailey v. Tarr
  469 F.2d 409· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the 1971 amendments to the Military Selective Service Act did not create a new 90-day moratorium on inductions, and therefore, induction orders issued during that period were not void.
• Prezzi v. Brig. Gen. L. J. Schelter
  469 F.2d 691· 2d Cir.· 1972-10-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that although the complaint asserted sufficient jurisdictional bases, it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.