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

• Rhodes v. Sigler
  448 F.2d 1237· 8th Cir.· 1971-09-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a prisoner's claim over a small debt owed to the prison is not a violation of a federally protected right and thus not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Gardner v. United States
  446 F.2d 1195· 2d Cir.· 1971-07-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the United States has not consented to be sued for the torts alleged in the counterclaim, and constitutional amendments do not independently waive sovereign immunity for such claims.
• Davenport v. Berman
  420 F.2d 294· 2d Cir.· 1969-12-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims lacked sufficient factual support and jurisdictional basis to proceed.
• Elgin A. McKENNA v. Udall
  418 F.2d 1171· D.C. Cir.· 1969-07-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the case must be dismissed because indispensable parties (the GSA grantees) were not joined, and an alternative forum exists where all parties can be joined.
• State OF Ga. v. City OF Chattanooga
  406 F.2d 830· 6th Cir.· 1969-02-06 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Georgia's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the seizure of property moving in interstate commerce raised substantial federal questions.
• Merge v. Troussi
  394 F.2d 79· 3d Cir.· 1968-05-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction because subsequent amendments to the Housing Act withdrew jurisdiction from the courts to review administrative determinations regarding relocation payments.
• Stumo v. United AIR Lines, Inc.
  382 F.2d 780· 7th Cir.· 1967-08-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's submission of her grievance to the System Board of Adjustment, as provided by the collective bargaining agreement and the Railway Labor Act, divested the district court of jurisdiction, as the Board acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the disp
• Simpson v. State OF Utah
  365 F.2d 185· 10th Cir.· 1966-08-30 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that a dispute over title to reliction lands, even if derived from federal patents, does not automatically confer federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) unless the controversy is determinable by interpretation of federal law.
• A. C. McKOY, Inc. v. Schonwald
  341 F.2d 737· 10th Cir.· 1965-02-16 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the trial court correctly dismissed the action for insufficiency of the amount in controversy, thus affirming the dismissal without reaching the merits.
• Sarelas v. Themis Anagnost
  332 F.2d 111· 7th Cir.· 1964-05-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the plaintiff's cause for want of jurisdiction, as none of the cited federal statutes or constitutional provisions provided a basis for jurisdiction.
• Arctic Maid & Arctic Maid Fisheries, Inc. v. Territory OF Alaska
  297 F.2d 28· 9th Cir.· 1961-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that appeals taken before Alaska's statehood, which result in reversal, should be remanded to the state supreme court if federal jurisdiction would not have been proper under current law.
• Mary v. Beck
  293 F.2d 333· 6th Cir.· 1961-07-03 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff's complaint did not present a federal question requiring construction of federal law. The nature of the title and the deed's restrictive clause are matters of state law.
• Mestre v. City OF Atlanta
  255 F.2d 401· 5th Cir.· 1958-05-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the city's re-zoning ordinance was not arbitrary or unreasonable and therefore valid, denying the plaintiffs' prayer for an injunction.
• Mudd v. Edw. C. Teague
  220 F.2d 162· 8th Cir.· 1955-03-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the District Court correctly dismissed the action for lack of federal jurisdiction, as the dispute over possession of U.S. savings bonds did not present a federal question or fall under the statute for actions on bonds.
• City of Memphis v. Ingram
  195 F.2d 338· 8th Cir.· 1952-04-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction was sufficiently alleged and evidenced, and the suit was not an impermissible collateral attack on a state court order.
• Moore v. Cent. R. Co. of N.J.
  185 F.2d 369· 2d Cir.· 1950-11-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim because the suit involved the enforcement and effect of a federal statute, even though the defendant was not the party who committed the alleged wrong under FELA.
• Walton v. City OF Atlanta
  181 F.2d 693· 5th Cir.· 1950-04-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction was properly predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and that the challenged city ordinances did not deprive taxi drivers of constitutional rights, thus denying injunctive relief.
• Diggs v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n
  180 F.2d 623· 10th Cir.· 1950-03-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the lower court correctly dismissed the complaint because no substantial constitutional question was presented, and the plaintiffs failed to exhaust available state administrative and judicial remedies.
• Woods v. Bomboy
  179 F.2d 565· 3d Cir.· 1950-01-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to entertain the action brought by the Housing Expediter for an injunction and restitution of rent overcharges.
• Petersen v. Doctor
  2025 WL 96212· M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-22 ·cited 3×
  A federal court must remand an action if an amended complaint drops all federal claims, even if supplemental jurisdiction was initially proper.
• Ward v. Nierlich
  617 F. Supp. 2d 1226· S.D. Fla.· 2008-03-28 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Plaintiffs lacked standing to assert financial institution fraud as a predicate act for their RICO claims because it was not the proximate cause of their alleged injuries. However, the court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding mail and wire fraud
• MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Credit Builders OF Am., Inc.
  980 F.2d 1021· 5th Cir.· 1993-01-12 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a suit to collect unpaid telecommunications charges under a tariff does not present a federal question, as it does not involve the validity, construction, or effect of federal law.
• Larrabee v. Derwinski
  968 F.2d 1497· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-26 ·cited 3×
  The court held that 38 U.S.C. § 511, as amended by the VJRA, precludes district court jurisdiction over claims challenging the VA's provision of benefits, including due process claims, except for facial challenges to the statute itself.
• Native Vill. OF Tyonek v. Puckett
  957 F.2d 631· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-16 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court's dismissal of the Village's claims against non-members was premature without express findings on tribal status and Indian country, and that the Kaloas and Constantines lacked standing to appeal.
• Kasib Tauheed Bilal v. Kaplan
  904 F.2d 14· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a private attorney's conduct in representing a client does not constitute state action for purposes of a § 1983 claim, and that federal question jurisdiction was not established.
• Marshall Leasing, Inc. v. United States
  893 F.2d 1096· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing claims for equitable relief based on due process violations, as sovereign immunity was waived under the APA, and there was no adequate remedy at law in the Claims Court for those specific claims. However, the court affirm
• Catawba Indian Tribe OF South Carolina v. State OF S.C.
  865 F.2d 1444· 4th Cir.· 1989-01-23 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the presumption of possession is rebuttable and was rebutted by the Catawbas' judicial admission of being out of possession for 140 years.
• Showtime/The Movie Channel, Inc. v. Covered Bridge Condo. Ass'n
  693 F. Supp. 1080· S.D. Fla.· 1988-03-23 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the condominium association's interception and distribution of satellite programming to its unit owners did not qualify for the 'private viewing' exception under the Federal Communications Act and constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition.
• Good Samaritan Med. Ctr. v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  776 F.2d 594· 6th Cir.· 1985-11-07 ·cited 3×
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is precluded by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) for claims arising under the Medicare Act, even if constitutional in nature, when an administrative review process is available.
• Montres Rolex, S.A. v. Snyder
  718 F.2d 524· 2d Cir.· 1983-09-14 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the definition of a 'counterfeit' trademark under 19 U.S.C. § 1526(e) should be applied from the standpoint of an average purchaser, and the comparison should be made with the mark on actual merchandise, not just the registration certificate.
• Rossi v. Best Resume Serv., Inc.
  497 F. Supp. 437· S.D. Fla.· 1980-09-11 ·cited 3×
  A petition for removal that fails to allege the principal place of business of a corporate party may be amended after the expiration of the thirty-day removal period if the omission is a technical defect, not a missing essential allegation.
• Ashton J. Mouton v. Sinclair OIL & GAS Co.
  410 F.2d 717· 5th Cir.· 1969-04-22 ·cited 3×
  The court held that its prior ruling in Mississippi River Fuel Corporation v. Cocreham is dispositive of all legal contentions raised by the Collector.
• Smith v. Wal-Mart Inc.
  917 F. Supp. 2d 1221· M.D. Fla.· 2021-03-01 ·cited 2×
  A civil action arising under state worker's compensation laws cannot be removed to federal court and must be remanded.
• Frounfelter v. Leavitt
  563 F. Supp. 2d 1327· M.D. Fla.· 2008-06-03 ·cited 2×
  The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the plaintiffs had not exhausted administrative remedies and that judicial review was properly vested in the Court of Appeals, not the district court.
• Delta Health Grp., Inc. v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
  459 F. Supp. 2d 1207· N.D. Fla.· 2006-11-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claims because they arose under the Medicare Act and were subject to the exclusive review provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 405(h), which requires administrative exhaustion.
• Stanley v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.
  426 F. Supp. 2d 1275· M.D. Fla.· 2006-03-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's motions to strike the jury demand and dismiss the bad faith claims were denied without prejudice, as the complaint did not sufficiently allege facts to establish ERISA preemption or an ERISA plan, but diversity jurisdiction was present.
• United States v. Kahn
  304 F. Supp. 2d 1353· M.D. Fla.· 2004-02-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the federal government's power to enforce the Internal Revenue Code is an enumerated power, not a residual power, and therefore does not require a "notice of acceptance" of jurisdiction over land.
• Gill v. Three Dimension Sys., Inc.
  87 F. Supp. 2d 1278· M.D. Fla.· 2000-02-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it had federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, but lacked personal jurisdiction over two defendants. The court denied dismissal for most claims but dismissed the mismanagement claim.
• Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Timke
  832 F. Supp. 338· S.D. Fla.· 1993-09-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (FEHBA) does not completely preempt state law claims, and therefore, a defendant's assertion of FEHBA preemption does not create federal question jurisdiction for removal.
• Vill. OF ELK Grove Vill. v. Evans
  997 F.2d 328· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the case is now moot because the applicant withdrew its FCC permit application, rendering the dispute between the Village and the Corps of Engineers no longer a live controversy.
• Broughton Lumber Co. v. Columbia River Gorge Comm'n
  975 F.2d 616· 9th Cir.· 1992-09-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred the inverse condemnation action against the states, the federal courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment action against the Commission, and the inverse condemnation action against the Commission was
• Taylor v. First OF Am. Bank-Wayne
  973 F.2d 1284· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-28 ·cited 2×
  The court should reverse the district court's decision to retain jurisdiction over pendent state law claims after the sole federal claim was dismissed before trial, as the factors do not support an overwhelming interest in judicial economy.
• Schoolcraft v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  971 F.2d 81· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the class action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that waiver of exhaustion was appropriate under the circumstances.
• Stevedoring Servs. OF Am., Inc. v. Eggert
  953 F.2d 552· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Stevedoring's claim for recoupment of alleged overcompensation under the LHWCA, as no federal cause of action for such recovery is implied or provided by the Act.
• Francis E. Heydt Co. v. United States
  948 F.2d 672· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting declaratory relief and awarding attorney fees under the EAJA because the equitable relief sought lacked significant prospective effect and the monetary claim belonged in the Claims Court.
• Broughton Lumber Co. v. Yeutter
  939 F.2d 1547· Fed. Cir.· 1991-07-12 ·cited 2×
  The Court of Appeals held that the district court correctly transferred Broughton's takings claim to the Claims Court, as neither the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act nor the Fifth Amendment provides jurisdiction in the district court for such claims exceeding $10,00
• Sibley v. Ball
  924 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1991-01-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that because the plaintiff's suit sought back pay, it was cognizable under the Little Tucker Act, and therefore the appeal must be transferred to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over such appeals.
• The City OF EL Paso v. The City OF Socorro
  917 F.2d 7· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court improperly applied Rule 11 standards by focusing on the correctness of the removal petition's legal basis rather than the reasonableness of the attorney's inquiry.
• Linder v. Calero Portocarrero
  747 F. Supp. 1452· S.D. Fla.· 1990-09-17 ·cited 2×
  The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiffs' claims non-justiciable due to the political question doctrine and the lack of a private right of action under customary international law or the Geneva Conventions.
• Hardwick v. Cuomo
  891 F.2d 1097· 3d Cir.· 1989-12-19 ·cited 2×
  The Tax Injunction Act bars federal court jurisdiction over challenges to state taxes when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts, and New York provides such a remedy for the challenged tax.