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

• Moises Garcia-Mir v. Smith
  766 F.2d 1478· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-11 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the Attorney General's suspension of parole releases under the Status Review Plan was based on a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, and that the district court lacked jurisdiction to set aside exclusion orders for the entire class without individual exh
• Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n OF Nev.
  614 F.2d 206· 9th Cir.· 1980-02-21 ·cited 63×
  The district court erred in dismissing the case under the Johnson Act; Pullman abstention is appropriate, requiring the district court to retain jurisdiction pending resolution of state law issues.
• Fairfax Countywide Citizens Ass'n v. Cnty. OF Fairfax
  571 F.2d 1299· 4th Cir.· 1978-03-06 ·cited 62×
  A district court lacks jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement that was not incorporated into a court order, unless there is an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.
• Owen v. The City OF Independence
  560 F.2d 925· 8th Cir.· 1977-08-15 ·cited 62×
  The court held that a claim for monetary relief under the fourteenth amendment against a city is permissible, even if the city is immune from suit under § 1983. The court also held that the plaintiff was deprived of a liberty interest without due process.
• Rowe v. United States
  633 F.2d 799· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-28 ·cited 60×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The district court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claim for damages exceeding $10,000, but had jurisdiction to review the agency action regarding the lease award. The plaintiffs failed to establish any right to the leases.
• Brewer v. Hoxie Sch. Dist. NO. 46 OF Lawrence Cnty.
  238 F.2d 91· 8th Cir.· 1956-10-25 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the federal district court had jurisdiction to issue an injunction against individuals and organizations conspiring to obstruct the desegregation of public schools, as the action arose under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
• Hanoch Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic
  726 F.2d 774· D.C. Cir.· 1984-02-03 ·cited 59×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as barred by the statute of limitations.
• Miller v. Stanmore
  636 F.2d 986· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-09 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the pro se complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and that plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend their complaint.
• Town Court Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Beal
  586 F.2d 266· 3d Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the nursing home's due process claim regarding termination of its Medicare provider agreement, even without full exhaustion of administrative remedies, due to the colorable nature of the constitutional claim.
• Martinez v. Elliot L. Richardson
  472 F.2d 1121· 10th Cir.· 1973-01-29 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the district court's final judgment was ambiguous and required clarification regarding the dismissal of claims and the retention of jurisdiction for certain plaintiffs. It also found that the district court had jurisdiction despite the lack of explicit finding
• Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council & Simon Howard v. The Minn. Chippewa Tribe
  370 F.2d 529· 8th Cir.· 1967-01-17 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to invalidate the tribal election, affirming the dismissal of the action.
• Bishop v. Tice
  622 F.2d 349· 8th Cir.· 1980-05-16 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the plaintiff stated actionable damage claims for denial of procedural due process, contractual interference, and fraud and deceit, reversing the district court's dismissal.
• Ozzie Hackett v. McGUIRE Bros., Inc.
  445 F.2d 442· 3d Cir.· 1971-07-08 ·cited 58×
  A former employee who has accepted pension benefits retains standing to sue under Title VII and § 1981 for past employment discrimination, and can represent a class of similarly affected individuals.
• Patzig v. O'Neil
  577 F.2d 841· 3d Cir.· 1978-04-17 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court erred in directing a verdict on the false arrest claim, as the issue of probable cause should have gone to the jury, but affirmed the directed verdict on due process and cruel and unusual punishment claims.
• City OF Milwaukee v. Saxbe
  546 F.2d 693· 7th Cir.· 1976-11-12 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the City of Milwaukee lacked standing to sue the Attorney General for discriminatory enforcement of civil rights laws and that the district court erred in finding subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
• Hahn v. United States
  757 F.2d 581· 3d Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over monetary claims exceeding $10,000, and erred in concluding plaintiffs were entitled to constructive service credit under applicable statutes.
• Ellis v. Cassidy
  625 F.2d 227· 9th Cir.· 1980-06-20 ·cited 55×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the appellant's suit but vacated the award of attorneys' fees for reconsideration of the amount.
• Westinghouse Elec. Corp. & its subsidiary v. Schlesinger
  542 F.2d 1190· 4th Cir.· 1976-09-30 ·cited 55×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 1905 qualifies under Exemption 3 of the Freedom of Information Act, and that suppliers of confidential information have a right to challenge agency disclosure decisions through judicial review, including evidentiary hearings.
• Rockbridge v. Lincoln
  449 F.2d 567· 9th Cir.· 1971-09-01 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the district court has jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act to review the Commissioner of Indian Affairs' failure to regulate traders on the Navajo Reservation, and that sovereign immunity does not bar the action.
• Manual de J. Gomez v. Wilson
  477 F.2d 411· D.C. Cir.· 1973-03-23 ·cited 54×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the district court correctly found police spot checks unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, but the case should be remanded for further proceedings to determine the scope of relief, particularly regarding class action.
• Chandler v. O'Bryan
  445 F.2d 1045· 10th Cir.· 1971-05-11 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court's declaratory judgment was not justified as necessary to protect or effectuate a prior federal judgment, nor was the claim of judicial immunity sufficient for original federal jurisdiction.
• Progress Dev. Corp. v. Mitchell
  286 F.2d 222· 7th Cir.· 1961-01-04 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief, but erred in dismissing certain counts of the complaint and dismissing one of the plaintiffs.
• Martinez v. The S. UTE Tribe OF the S. UTE Reservation
  249 F.2d 915· 10th Cir.· 1957-11-15 ·cited 54×
  A plaintiff's complaint does not state a federal question merely because it involves a corporation organized under federal law or concerns Indian tribal membership, absent a dispute requiring interpretation of federal law.
• Martori Bros. Distribs. v. Jyrl James-Massengale
  781 F.2d 1349· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-30 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board's (ALRB) 'make-whole' remedy, which includes fringe benefits, is not preempted by ERISA, nor does it violate the Contract Clause or Fifth Amendment.
• Md. Dep't OF Human Res. v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
  763 F.2d 1441· D.C. Cir.· 1985-06-07 ·cited 52×
  The court held that Maryland's claims for specific relief, even if monetary, fall within the APA's waiver of sovereign immunity and are not precluded by the Tucker Act, allowing them to be heard under federal question jurisdiction.
• Cinevision Corp. v. City OF Burbank
  745 F.2d 560· 9th Cir.· 1984-10-18 ·cited 52×
  The court held that live musical expression is protected by the First Amendment and that the Starlight Bowl is a public forum, thus the City's content-based rejection of concerts violated Cinevision's rights.
• Nat'l Ass'n OF Home Health Agencies v. Schweiker
  690 F.2d 932· D.C. Cir.· 1982-09-14 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the claims and that the Secretary must comply with the APA's notice and comment provisions. However, it reversed the district court's holding that the Secretary lacked the statutory authority to require Home Health Agen
• Megapulse, Inc. v. Drew Lewis
  672 F.2d 959· D.C. Cir.· 1982-01-29 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as Megapulse's claim was not a disguised contract action barred by the Tucker Act but rather a valid claim under the Administrative Procedure Act for injunctive relief.
• Gagliardi v. Flint
  564 F.2d 112· 3d Cir.· 1977-08-10 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court had federal question jurisdiction to hear pendent state law claims and that no reversible trial errors occurred.
• Pierre v. United States
  525 F.2d 933· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-08 ·cited 52×
  Habeas corpus is not the appropriate vehicle for declaratory or injunctive relief unrelated to custody. However, an independent action for such relief may be possible.
• Gray v. Union Cnty. Intermediate Educ. Dist.
  520 F.2d 803· 9th Cir.· 1975-07-01 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the nonrenewal of the teacher's contract did not violate her First Amendment or due process rights because her actions exceeded protected speech and did not rise to the level of a liberty deprivation.
• Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Local Unions 327
  508 F.2d 687· 3d Cir.· 1975-01-30 ·cited 52×
  The court held that a plant-wide seniority system perpetuating past discrimination can be challenged without proving subjective discriminatory intent.
• City OF Houston & Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Standard-Triumph Motor Co., Inc.
  347 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1965-05-25 ·cited 52×
• Prairie Band OF the Pottawatomie Tribe OF Indians v. Mage N. Puckkee
  321 F.2d 767· 10th Cir.· 1963-08-07 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the suit for lack of federal question jurisdiction, as the dispute was an intra-tribal matter concerning fund distribution, not a substantial federal law issue.
• Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. Martin
  643 F.2d 1376· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-01 ·cited 50×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The district court had jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment regarding contract rights, and it did not err in estopping the United States from denying the concession agreement extension based on representations made.
• Trinity Mem'l Hosp. OF Cudahy, Inc. v. Associated Hosp. Serv., Inc.
  570 F.2d 660· 7th Cir.· 1977-12-16 ·cited 50×
  The district court's subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is precluded by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h), even for constitutional claims.
• United States v. S. Pac. Transp. Co.
  543 F.2d 676· 9th Cir.· 1976-09-10 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the 1875 Act does not apply to executive order reservations and that individual allottees' claims cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount. It affirmed a partial easement for lands ceded in 1906 but reversed the finding of a license.
• S. Windsor Convalescent Home, Inc. v. Mathews
  541 F.2d 910· 2d Cir.· 1976-07-27 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the plaintiff, a provider of services, was not a beneficiary barred by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) from seeking recovery of funds paid under protest due to alleged coercion by the Secretary.
• Merriam v. Kunzig
  476 F.2d 1233· 3d Cir.· 1973-02-16 ·cited 50×
  The panel's opinion may have obscured the significance of the substantive legal claim issue by combining it with the standing issue.
• Cortright v. Resor
  447 F.2d 245· 2d Cir.· 1971-08-20 ·cited 50×
  The court held that while courts must be scrupulous not to interfere with legitimate military matters, the exercise of First Amendment rights by service members is not exclusively an Army matter and may warrant judicial intervention.
• Baldwin v. Morgan
  251 F.2d 780· 5th Cir.· 1958-01-14 ·cited 50×
  The majority erred in finding federal court jurisdiction over the Birmingham Terminal Company.
• Parks v. United States Internal Revenue Serv.
  618 F.2d 677· 10th Cir.· 1980-03-27 ·cited 49×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that employees may maintain a civil action under the Privacy Act for unauthorized disclosure of personnel files used for soliciting bond purchases, and that allegations of psychological harm constitute an adverse effect sufficient for a damages claim.
• The Rath Packing Co. v. Becker
  530 F.2d 1295· 9th Cir.· 1975-10-29 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Rath's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, and that abstention or comity did not require relinquishing jurisdiction.
• Brown v. Dixie Herlong Chastain
  416 F.2d 1012· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-04 ·cited 49×
  The district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 to hear claims alleging deprivation of constitutional rights by state judicial officers. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not preclude this jurisdicti
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. City OF Long Beach
  772 F.2d 534· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-24 ·cited 48×
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction was not present for claims turning solely on contract interpretation, but diversity jurisdiction was improperly declined based on abstention principles. The court reversed dismissal of diversity claims and remanded, while affirmin
• Hanson v. Town OF Flower Mound
  679 F.2d 497· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-02 ·cited 48×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a final decision even if no separate judgment document was entered, provided the appellee does not object. The court also held that claims regarding the republican form of government and an arrest without probable cau
• Arlo Tatum v. Laird
  444 F.2d 947· D.C. Cir.· 1971-04-27 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims of a chilling effect on their First Amendment rights due to the Army's information gathering, without allegations of actual misuse or concrete threat, did not present a justiciable case or controversy.
• Gertrude P. Fuller v. Volk
  351 F.2d 323· 3d Cir.· 1965-09-30 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the original plaintiffs (taxpayers) due to insufficient amount in controversy and that the record was insufficient to determine jurisdiction for the intervening plaintiffs.
• Mora v. Mejias
  206 F.2d 377· 1st Cir.· 1953-07-24 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a temporary injunction because the plaintiff had not shown with reasonable certainty that he would ultimately prevail.
• Great W. United Corp. v. Kidwell
  577 F.2d 1256· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-10 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the Idaho Takeover Statute is preempted by the Williams Act and violates the Commerce Clause, and that personal jurisdiction over the Idaho Director of Finance was proper in Texas.