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

• Silvera v. The Mut. Life INS. Co. OF NEW York
  884 F.2d 423· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-29 ·cited 2×
  A municipal employer establishing or maintaining an employee welfare benefit plan by purchasing a group insurance policy for its employees qualifies as a 'governmental plan' exempt from ERISA coverage.
• Anderson v. Bowen
  881 F.2d 1· 2d Cir.· 1989-07-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review Medicare Part B benefit amount determinations, and that neither a substantial constitutional claim nor mandamus jurisdiction was established.
• Americans United FOR Separation OF Church & State v. The Sch. Dist. OF the City OF Grand Rapids
  835 F.2d 627· 6th Cir.· 1987-12-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 are only available if the action explicitly enforces one of the enumerated civil rights statutes, not merely if the substance of the claim could be construed as such.
• Wardle v. Nw. Inv. Co.
  830 F.2d 118· 8th Cir.· 1987-09-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' action against the private defendants was barred by the statute of limitations under the Indian General Allotment Act and the Minnesota Marketable Title Act. The court also held that the United States had not waived sovereign immunity for the p
• Emerson Emory v. Secretary of the Navy
  819 F.2d 291· D.C. Cir.· 1987-05-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider claims of constitutional violations arising from military promotion decisions, even if the promotion process itself is reserved to the executive and legislative branches.
• Marita Rogers v. Platt
  814 F.2d 683· D.C. Cir.· 1987-03-17 ·cited 2×
  The District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case and should have dismissed the action.
• Atl. City Mun. Utils. Auth. v. Reg'l Adm'r
  803 F.2d 96· 3d Cir.· 1986-10-14 ·cited 2×
  The majority held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over ACMUA's claim under the FWPCA citizen suit provision because the alleged duty to release funds was discretionary.
• Fate Terry v. Northrup Worldwide Aircraft Servs., Inc.
  786 F.2d 1558· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the conciliation agreement was not enforceable when the plaintiffs filed suit because it was stayed pending OFCCP review, thus their third-party beneficiary claim must be dismissed.
• Hollander v. Brezenoff
  787 F.2d 834· 2d Cir.· 1986-04-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that claims for Medicaid reimbursement are governed by New York's three-year statute of limitations for statutory claims, not the six-year contract limitations period, and that the claims were time-barred.
• Thomas v. Tenn. Valley Auth.
  769 F.2d 367· 6th Cir.· 1985-08-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that TVA, by inspecting and noting a safety violation, did not assume a duty to ensure its immediate correction, and thus could not be held liable for the contractor employee's death under the 'good Samaritan' doctrine or Kentucky law for its own negligence.
• Ammons v. Dade City
  594 F. Supp. 1274· M.D. Fla.· 1984-09-21 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the City of Dade City engaged in unconstitutional racial discrimination by providing unequal municipal services, specifically street paving, to its black residents.
• Giannetti Bros. Constr. Corp. v. Lee Cnty.
  585 F. Supp. 1214· M.D. Fla.· 1984-05-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a breach of contract claim, even if stemming from provisions mandated by federal regulations, does not automatically create federal question jurisdiction if the underlying rights and remedies are governed by state law.
• The Genesee Brewing Co., Inc. v. Vill. OF Sodus Point
  733 F.2d 258· 2d Cir.· 1984-05-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the village was not required to refund payments made under a state law adopted pursuant to a repealed federal provision, as no federal right to such refunds was created.
• Nees v. Bishop
  730 F.2d 606· 10th Cir.· 1984-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach until adversary judicial proceedings have been initiated, and arrest alone does not trigger this right.
• The Ecclesiastical Order OF THE ISM OF AM, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Serv.
  725 F.2d 398· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act prohibit suits seeking to restrain the assessment or collection of federal taxes, or seeking declaratory relief in federal tax matters. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims based on these acts but
• NEW Jersey Speech-Language-Hearing Ass'n v. Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am.
  724 F.2d 383· 3d Cir.· 1983-12-29 ·cited 2×
  The Medicare Act's express grant of standing to providers evidences a congressional intent to preclude suppliers of services from seeking judicial review of reimbursement procedures or amounts.
• Wallace v. State OF Okla.
  721 F.2d 301· 10th Cir.· 1983-11-14 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The Eleventh Amendment bars a suit against the State of Oklahoma for attorneys' fees incurred in a prior state court proceeding, as the state has not waived its immunity from suit in federal court.
• Cherry v. Steiner
  716 F.2d 687· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Arizona Groundwater Management Act of 1980 is constitutional and that the Supreme Court's summary dismissal in Chino Valley II is not binding on the specific constitutional claims raised here. The court also found the Act was not void for improper referenc
• Merrill Ditch-Liners, Inc. v. Nat Pablo
  670 F.2d 139· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-26 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the Secretary's approval of a loan recipient's contract award, based on the agency's determination of repayment assurance, is an action committed to agency discretion and therefore not subject to judicial review.
• Jensen v. Mitschele Contracting Co.
  630 F.2d 209· 3d Cir.· 1980-09-26 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  A demand for access to corporate papers to prepare a federal estate tax return does not constitute a case arising under federal law sufficient to confer federal subject matter jurisdiction.
• Barlow v. Marion Cnty. Hosp. Dist.
  495 F. Supp. 682· M.D. Fla.· 1980-07-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while plaintiffs stated constitutional claims over which it had jurisdiction, they failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the Hill-Burton Act because they did not allege exhaustion of administrative remedies as required by the statute.
• Gorman v. Army & AIR Force Exch. Serv.
  619 F.2d 1141· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-27 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the district court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over a wrongful discharge claim against AAFES, even if not explicitly stated in the complaint.
• SEA Land Serv. Inc. v. Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto RICO Departmento de Instrucion Publica
  588 F.2d 312· 1st Cir.· 1978-12-08 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars a federal court action for demurrage against the Department of Education of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as the Commonwealth did not waive its sovereign immunity by purchasing goods shipped by a maritime carrier.
• Cervase v. Off. of the Fed. Register
  580 F.2d 1166· 3d Cir.· 1978-05-30 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint and refusing to consider an amended complaint, as subject matter jurisdiction exists and the plaintiff has standing.
• Roberts v. City OF Woonsocket
  575 F.2d 339· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the city's 1975 zoning amendments were a valid exercise of police power and did not deprive plaintiffs of property without due process.
• Dema v. State OF Ill.
  546 F.2d 224· 7th Cir.· 1976-12-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly refused to convene a three-judge court and properly dismissed the complaint based on abstention principles.
• Schneider v. Betti S. Whaley
  541 F.2d 916· 2d Cir.· 1976-08-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while plaintiffs are entitled to a hearing, the agency may suspend or terminate assistance pending the hearing if the sole issue is state or federal law or policy, and that the defendants' appeal was moot.
• MAY v. The Supreme Court OF the State OF Colo.
  508 F.2d 136· 10th Cir.· 1974-12-31 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state in federal court unless the state has waived its sovereign immunity. Officials acting within their official capacities are also immune from suit.
• Stanley v. Tucker
  441 F.2d 740· 2d Cir.· 1971-04-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the claim involved property rights, not personal rights required for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
• EVE Prods., Inc. v. Shannon
  439 F.2d 1073· 8th Cir.· 1971-03-16 ·cited 2×
  Federal courts should not enjoin state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or irreparable injury.
• Booth v. Lemont MFG. Corp.
  440 F.2d 385· 7th Cir.· 1971-01-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege a claim cognizable under federal law, and therefore, the district court's dismissal for lack of federal jurisdiction was affirmed.
• Spears v. Robinson
  431 F.2d 1089· 8th Cir.· 1970-09-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims could not be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement for federal question jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the claim involved property rights rather than personal liberties.
• James Rudolph Preston (Amek Bin Rilla) v. Purtell
  410 F.2d 234· 7th Cir.· 1969-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction because the plaintiff's claims were insubstantial and failed to meet the requirements for establishing jurisdiction.
• Townsend v. Ross
  396 F.2d 573· 8th Cir.· 1968-06-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing inspection of jury lists and that the plaintiff failed to prove deliberate or systematic exclusion of Negro jurors.
• Cheatham v. Carter Cnty.
  363 F.2d 582· 6th Cir.· 1966-07-20 ·cited 2×
  A federal court has jurisdiction over a suit for just compensation for land taken by a county, even if a state condemnation proceeding is pending, if the county knew of the plaintiffs' equitable interest but failed to join them as parties.
• Smith v. The State OF Cal.
  336 F.2d 530· 9th Cir.· 1964-09-09 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the complaint did not present a substantial federal question, and therefore, the district court correctly dismissed the action.
• Mainelli v. Providence Journal Co.
  312 F.2d 3· 1st Cir.· 1962-12-31 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims did not establish federal jurisdiction, as the editorial did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 1503 and the jurisdictional claim was insubstantial.
• Wallace v. City OF Rock Island
  303 F.2d 637· 7th Cir.· 1962-05-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish federal court jurisdiction because the action did not involve the requisite amount in controversy or arise under an Act of Congress regulating commerce in a manner sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
• Salyer Land Co. v. Cnty. OF Kings
  285 F.2d 481· 9th Cir.· 1960-12-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a dispute over ownership of property for state tax purposes, even if influenced by a federal loan agreement, does not present a substantial federal question sufficient for federal court jurisdiction.
• Hicks v. City OF LOS Angeles
  240 F.2d 495· 9th Cir.· 1957-01-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while federal question jurisdiction was sufficiently alleged to survive a motion to dismiss, the case should be granted summary judgment for the defendant on res judicata grounds.
• Carnahan v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n
  2020 WL 1166721· S.D. Fla.· 2025-11-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice because it constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading and fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction for claims against the SEC, and the Bivens claims against individual defendants are unav
• State of Ga. v. Clark
  119 F.4th 1304· 11th Cir.· 2024-10-24 ·cited 1×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order, holding that the federal-officer removal statute does not apply to former federal officers and that the removability of the concluded special purpose grand jury proceeding was moot.
• Ziegenhorn v. United States
  2018 WL 10140148· N.D. Fla.· 2024-10-10 ·cited 1×
  The court recommended dismissal of the case without prejudice because the pro se plaintiff failed to comply with court orders to file a proper complaint and pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis.
• Inetianbor v. Cashcall, Inc.
  1990 WL 16380· S.D. Fla.· 2013-02-15 ·cited 1×
  The court held that removal was proper due to federal question jurisdiction over the FCRA claim, and that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, requiring the parties to arbitrate their dispute.
• Ahern v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins.
  664 F. Supp. 2d 1224· M.D. Fla.· 2009-10-07 ·cited 1×
  A forum selection clause requiring venue in a specific county does not preclude litigation in the federal court encompassing that county, and certain fraud and securities claims were sufficiently pled to survive a motion to dismiss.
• Hearn v. McKay
  642 F. Supp. 2d 1330· S.D. Fla.· 2008-10-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the remaining non-defaulting defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties by approving year-end bonuses or by participating in election rigging, finding their testimony more credible than that of a convicted felon.
• Autonation, Inc. v. United Healthcare Ins.
  423 F. Supp. 2d 1265· S.D. Fla.· 2006-03-21 ·cited 1×
  The court held that state law claims for breach of contract and professional negligence were preempted by ERISA, but the claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA was sufficiently pleaded.
• Bravo v. United States
  403 F. Supp. 2d 1182· S.D. Fla.· 2005-11-30 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the United States was liable under the FTCA for the negligence of its employees and Dr. Kushner, finding that Dr. Kushner was an employee for FTCA purposes and that his negligence, along with that of military personnel, caused the infant's injuries.
• Major League Baseball v. Butterworth
  2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22021· N.D. Fla.· 2001-12-27 ·cited 1×
  The federal antitrust laws do not apply to the 'business of baseball,' including contraction, and this exemption extends to state antitrust laws.
• Circle Redmont, Inc. v. Mercer Transp. Co.
  78 F. Supp. 2d 1316· M.D. Fla.· 1999-12-26 ·cited 1×
  The Carmack Amendment's preemptive force is not so extraordinary as to convert state law claims into federal claims for removal jurisdiction purposes.