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

• In re "agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation
  635 F.2d 987· 2d Cir.· 1980-11-24 ·cited 37×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction exists because the case arises under federal common law, requiring a uniform rule of product liability for veterans exposed to Agent Orange.
• City OF Evansville v. Ky. Liquid Recycling, Inc.
  604 F.2d 1008· 7th Cir.· 1979-08-09 ·cited 37×
  A claim is stated under the federal common law of nuisance for interstate water pollution, and the district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, no private right of action exists under the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or the
• Willy Dreyfus v. August von Finck and Merck
  534 F.2d 24· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-06 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims under treaties and the law of nations failed to state a cause of action for which relief could be granted in U.S. District Court.
• Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Waller
  906 F.2d 985· 4th Cir.· 1990-06-27 ·cited 36×
  A plan administrator can recover advanced benefits under federal common law of unjust enrichment, even if they failed to obtain a signed repayment agreement, when the plan terms and ERISA's equitable principles support such recovery.
• Hameetman v. The City OF Chicago
  776 F.2d 636· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 36×
• Kuehner v. Schweiker
  717 F.2d 813· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the class action complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, reversing the dismissal.
• Holloman v. Watt
  708 F.2d 1399· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-20 ·cited 36×
  The government is immune from the appellees' claim for damages for loss of tribal privileges because there was no unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity.
• Goss v. SAN Jacinto Junior Coll.
  588 F.2d 96· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court had proper jurisdiction, the college was not immune under the Eleventh Amendment, and there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the instructor's contract was not renewed due to First Amendment activity.
• Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Costle
  572 F.2d 1349· 9th Cir.· 1978-04-05 ·cited 36×
  The majority opinion reversed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding the EPA Administrator's duty discretionary. Judge Hauk dissents, arguing the duty was nondiscretionary and the injunction proper.
• Nguyen DA YEN v. Kissinger
  528 F.2d 1194· 9th Cir.· 1975-11-05 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under the habeas corpus statute and that plaintiffs' attorneys must have access to children's records to determine claims of illegal detention.
• Kimball v. Callahan
  493 F.2d 564· 9th Cir.· 1974-02-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that Klamath Indians who withdrew from the tribe retain treaty rights to hunt, trap, and fish free of state regulation on their ancestral reservation lands, even after termination of federal supervision.
• NEW York State Waterways Ass'n, Inc. v. Diamond
  469 F.2d 419· 2d Cir.· 1972-11-10 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and in denying a three-judge court, as the constitutional claims were not insubstantial.
• Webster Bivens v. SIX Unknown Named Agents OF the Fed. Bureau OF Narcotics
  409 F.2d 718· 2d Cir.· 1969-04-10 ·cited 36×
  Federal courts can entertain state-created causes of action against federal officers for constitutional violations, even if no specific federal statute authorizes such suits.
• McFADDIN Express v. The Adley Corp.
  346 F.2d 424· 2d Cir.· 1965-06-07 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the complaint did not establish federal question jurisdiction because the ICC order was permissive and did not create a federal duty, and no other federal law governed the contract disputes.
• AETNA Ins. Co. v. Chicago
  229 F.2d 584· 10th Cir.· 1956-01-19 ·cited 36×
  Claims arising from a single instrument but representing separate, distinct rights cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount in federal court.
• Odis R. VAN Buskirk v. Wilkinson
  216 F.2d 735· 9th Cir.· 1954-11-08 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the petition failed to allege an amount in controversy and that, even if treated as a habeas corpus petition, the inmate's claim of double jeopardy was without merit.
• Gustav E. Beerly v. Dep't OF the Treas.
  768 F.2d 942· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 35×
  The Comptroller's statutory appraisal of dissenting shareholders' shares, conducted without an oral evidentiary hearing, was constitutionally adequate and judicially reviewable under a deferential standard.
• Glacier Park Found. v. Watt
  663 F.2d 882· 9th Cir.· 1981-12-10 ·cited 35×
  The court held that while the denial of a preliminary injunction was proper, the Service violated regulations by negotiating with a bidder after rejecting all proposals, requiring a resolicitation.
• Buechold v. Ortiz
  401 F.2d 371· 9th Cir.· 1968-10-01 ·cited 35×
  Federal courts lack original jurisdiction over paternity and child support cases, even with diversity of citizenship and treaty provisions granting access, as these matters fall under domestic relations traditionally handled by state courts.
• Airco Indus. Gases v. The Teamsters Health & Welf. Pension Fund OF Philadelphia & Vicinity
  850 F.2d 1028· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-30 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court's factual finding regarding the refund policy was clearly erroneous due to a disregarded admission, requiring vacation of the refund award. The court affirmed the denial of interest and attorneys' fees.
• McMICHAEL v. Cnty. OF Napa & Napa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors
  709 F.2d 1268· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-16 ·cited 34×
  The suit must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, not for lack of standing.
• High OL' Times, Inc. v. Busbee
  621 F.2d 135· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-09 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by abstaining from hearing the constitutional challenges to the Georgia drug paraphernalia statutes, as the Pullman factors for abstention were not met.
• Indus. Indem., Inc. v. Moon Landrieu
  615 F.2d 644· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-14 ·cited 34×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) because the suit against the Secretary of HUD for construction retainages arose under federal law and could be paid from a fund separate from the Treasury.
• GAY Student Servs. v. Tex. A & M Univ.
  612 F.2d 160· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-20 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case, as the university and its officials could be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Eleventh Amendment immunity did not bar injunctive or declaratory relief.
• Southpark Square Ltd. v. City OF Jackson
  565 F.2d 338· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-27 ·cited 34×
  The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's claim that the denial of a building permit constituted a taking was insubstantial and frivolous.
• Eli M. Spark v. The Catholic Univ. of Am.
  510 F.2d 1277· D.C. Cir.· 1975-04-07 ·cited 34×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that federal funding alone does not convert a private university into a governmental agency for the purpose of establishing federal question jurisdiction, and that dispensing with an oral hearing on a summary judgment motion is permissible in appropriate circumstan
• Wounded Knee Legal Defense/Offense Comm. v. The Fed. Bureau OF Investigation
  507 F.2d 1281· 8th Cir.· 1974-11-07 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court in its jurisdictional findings, refusal to recuse, rejection of affidavits, or application of preliminary injunction standards.
• Chaudoin v. Atkinson
  494 F.2d 1323· 3d Cir.· 1974-04-10 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Adjutant General abused his discretion and issued an unlawful order by dismissing a civilian technician for refusing a funeral detail duty unrelated to his job description, and that the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1361.
• Moses v. Kinnear
  490 F.2d 21· 9th Cir.· 1973-11-02 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court's stay order was appealable and that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, remanding the cases for further consideration in light of intervening Supreme Court decisions.
• Spock v. David
  469 F.2d 1047· 3d Cir.· 1972-10-27 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge believes the jurisdictional amount issue should be remanded to the District Court for a substantive determination, as the lower court made no such finding.
• McGUIRE v. Sadler
  337 F.2d 902· 5th Cir.· 1964-10-19 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the case, reversing the dismissal for want of jurisdiction.
• D'Amato v. Wis. GAS Co.
  760 F.2d 1474· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-25 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a third-party beneficiary claim under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act is not available, as Congress intended the administrative scheme to be the sole avenue of redress.
• Harkless v. The Sweeny Indep. Sch. Dist. OF Sweeny
  554 F.2d 1353· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-01 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the trial court erred in finding no intentional racial discrimination and abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to add a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
• Nor-Tex Agencies, Inc. v. Jones
  482 F.2d 1093· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-26 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the transactions constituted sales of 'securities' subject to federal anti-fraud provisions, and that the joinder of claims and parties was proper.
• The State OF Tex. v. Reuben Pankey
  441 F.2d 236· 10th Cir.· 1971-02-08 ·cited 33×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  A state's suit seeking protection from transboundary environmental pollution, based on federal common law, arises under the laws of the United States and is within the jurisdiction of federal district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), regardless of the state's party status.
• Cora Hubbard Williams v. Cora Williams Murdoch & Commonwealth Bank & Tr. Co.
  330 F.2d 745· 3d Cir.· 1964-04-20 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the dismissal of the plaintiff's federal due process claim by the lower court on res judicata grounds was improper because neither the Orphans' Court nor the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had actually adjudicated the due process issue.
• Hickey v. Duffy
  827 F.2d 234· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that even if a federal statutory claim was ripe, the district court should have abstained from deciding it due to parallel state proceedings and important state interests.
• Hilgeford v. The Peoples Bank
  776 F.2d 176· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-31 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a land patent alone does not create a federal question sufficient for federal court jurisdiction, and affirmed the district court's dismissal and sanctions.
• Alton BOX Bd. Co. v. Esprit de Corp.
  682 F.2d 1267· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred federal courts from enjoining the state court action, and there was no independent federal jurisdiction for declaratory relief on a preemption defense.
• The Amalgamated Sugar Co. & U & I Inc. v. Bergland
  664 F.2d 818· 10th Cir.· 1981-11-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the repayment of loans rendered the case moot, and the remaining claim for storage payments was a monetary claim against the United States properly brought in the Court of Claims, not the district court.
• Till v. Unifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n & Wortman & Mann, Inc.
  653 F.2d 152· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-07 ·cited 32×
• Brown v. Stanton
  617 F.2d 1224· 7th Cir.· 1980-01-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the state must pay the full cost of nursing home care when a spouse with sufficient income refuses to contribute, despite legal obligation.
• Hanna v. Drobnick
  514 F.2d 393· 6th Cir.· 1975-04-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the inspectors and commissioners were entitled to qualified immunity based on good faith and reasonable grounds, and that the City of Euclid was not liable for punitive damages due to a lack of willful or malicious behavior.
• Howard Univ. v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
  510 F.2d 213· D.C. Cir.· 1975-03-25 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the NCAA's actions constitute state action, subjecting it to constitutional scrutiny, and affirmed the district court's decision to uphold the five-year and 1.600 rules while striking down the foreign-student rule.
• League TO Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency
  507 F.2d 517· 9th Cir.· 1974-11-22 ·cited 32×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  A federal court has original jurisdiction over a suit arising under a Congressionally sanctioned interstate compact because the compact is considered a law of the United States.
• Blue v. Craig
  505 F.2d 830· 4th Cir.· 1974-10-18 ·cited 32×
  The court held that Section 1983 provides a cause of action for deprivations of rights secured by federal laws, not just the Constitution, and that federal jurisdiction exists under Section 1343(3) and (4) for such claims, even if they involve welfare benefits.
• P I Enters., Inc. v. Cataldo
  457 F.2d 1012· 1st Cir.· 1972-03-31 ·cited 32×
  A federal court action based on substantially identical facts and claims as a prior state court decision is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, even if the federal action seeks damages under a federal statute.
• Skokomish Indian Tribe v. France
  269 F.2d 555· 9th Cir.· 1959-06-26 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court had federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331, and that the State of Washington had not waived its sovereign immunity to suit in federal court.
• Snow v. Quinault Indian Nation
  709 F.2d 1319· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-07 ·cited 31×
  Tribal sovereign immunity bars a suit challenging a tribal business tax, and claims under the Indian Civil Rights Act are limited to habeas corpus relief in federal court.
• Carpet v. Brown
  656 F.2d 564· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-30 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, as plaintiffs' allegations, if proven, could support mandamus or mandatory injunction relief.