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

• Keaukaha-Panaewa Cmty. Ass'n v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n
  588 F.2d 1216· 9th Cir.· 1978-09-18 ·cited 31×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the Admission Act does not provide a private right of action, and the Commission Act claims do not arise under federal law, thus the district court lacked jurisdiction.
• Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc. v. Califano
  571 F.2d 58· 1st Cir.· 1978-02-23 ·cited 31×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) from issuing licenses, as the dispute was primarily a contract claim falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.
• Jones v. Gordon
  792 F.2d 821· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Service's decision not to prepare an environmental impact statement was unreasonable because it failed to adequately explain why exceptions to a categorical exclusion did not apply, and that the MMPA's time limits do not irreconcilably conflict with NEPA's
• A & A Concrete, Inc. v. The White Mountain Apache Tribe
  781 F.2d 1411· 9th Cir.· 1986-02-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that appellants failed to exhaust their remedies in tribal court, making federal review premature, and that res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply to preclude the Tribe from litigating jurisdiction in tribal court.
• Cardin v. De La Cruz
  671 F.2d 363· 9th Cir.· 1982-03-15 ·cited 30×
  The Court held that the Quinault Indian Tribe has the inherent sovereign power to enforce its building, health, and safety regulations against a non-Indian operating a business on fee land within the reservation, as the conduct falls under exceptions to the general rule limiting
• Paterson v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  644 F.2d 521· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is the exclusive remedy for age discrimination claims by federal employees, but the plaintiff should have an opportunity to prove jurisdiction regarding the ADEA claim.
• Chelsea Cmty. Hosp. v. Mich. Blue Cross Ass'n
  630 F.2d 1131· 6th Cir.· 1980-09-25 ·cited 30×
  The court held that Congress did not intend to preclude judicial review of Medicare provider reimbursement procedures and that the district court erred in dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction.
• Russel v. LEE under Declaration of Tr. dated March 19
  588 F.2d 1281· 9th Cir.· 1979-01-03 ·cited 30×
  The district court erred in issuing a writ of mandamus to compel the redemption of flower bonds, as the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over such claims.
• Local Div. NO. 714, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO v. Greater Portland Transit Dist. OF Portland
  589 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1978-11-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the union's suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the complaint stated a claim arising under federal law.
• The Med. Soc'y OF the State OF NEW York v. Toia
  560 F.2d 535· 2d Cir.· 1977-08-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting interim injunctive relief because the plaintiffs failed to establish a probability of success on the merits.
• Smith v. Spina
  477 F.2d 1140· 3d Cir.· 1973-04-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a state tort claim, even if arising from the same facts as a federal civil rights claim, is governed by state law and requires proper pleading for federal jurisdiction. The court also found no reversible error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings or jury i
• Potrero Hill Cmty. Action Comm. v. The Hous. Auth. OF the City & Cnty. OF SAN Francisco
  410 F.2d 974· 9th Cir.· 1969-04-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the tenants' claims could not be aggregated to meet the $10,000 amount in controversy requirement for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because they did not assert a single right in which they had a common and undivided interest.
• Empresa Hondurena de Vapores, S.A. v. McLEOD
  300 F.2d 222· 2d Cir.· 1962-01-12 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board exceeded its jurisdiction by directing an election for a Honduran-flagged vessel's crew, violating treaty obligations and international law principles.
• Turner v. Wilson Line OF Mass., Inc.
  242 F.2d 414· 1st Cir.· 1957-03-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims did not arise under federal law, and the damages for pain and suffering did not meet the jurisdictional minimum.
• Fields v. Washington
  173 F.2d 701· 3d Cir.· 1949-04-01 ·cited 30×
  The district court correctly dismissed the tenant's suit for rent overcharges due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed $3,000.
• Coal. TO Preserve THE Integrity OF Am. Trademarks v. United States
  790 F.2d 903· D.C. Cir.· 1986-05-06 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the Customs Service regulations permitting importation of grey-market goods were invalid as contrary to Section 526 of the Tariff Act of 1930, but that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction.
• Robbins v. Reagan
  780 F.2d 37· D.C. Cir.· 1985-12-10 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case, as there was no federal law to apply regarding the agency's discretionary actions. The court also found that the district court improperly conditioned the closing of the shelter on the pro
• Eatmon v. Bristol Steel & Iron Works, Inc.
  769 F.2d 1503· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-03 ·cited 29×
  The court held that federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction to enforce conciliation agreements and releases under Title VII, and also under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for claims based on Executive Order 11246. However, the court reversed the denial of front pay and the award of att
• Powers v. S. Cent. United Food & Commercial Workers Unions & Emp'rs Health & Welf. Tr.
  719 F.2d 760· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-31 ·cited 29×
  A defense of federal preemption of state law claims does not suffice to bring a case within the original jurisdiction of federal courts for removal purposes.
• Murphy v. Inexco OIL Co.
  611 F.2d 570· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-08 ·cited 29×
  A district court has jurisdiction to determine whether a claim to ERISA coverage has merit, and dismissal for want of jurisdiction is improper if the claim is not frivolous. The Westland Agreement is not an ERISA plan because it constitutes a bonus for work performed and does not
• Khedivial Line v. Seafarers' Int'l Union
  278 F.2d 49· 2d Cir.· 1960-05-04 ·cited 29×
  A federal court cannot issue an injunction for a maritime tort, as admiralty jurisdiction does not grant injunctive relief and federal question jurisdiction does not extend to general maritime law claims.
• Feinstein v. Resolution Tr. Corp.
  942 F.2d 34· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a district court must make an express determination and direction to enter final judgment under Rule 54(b), and such determination cannot be inferred from the mere entry of an otherwise interlocutory order.
• Stamatina Stallcop v. Kaiser Found. Hosps.
  820 F.2d 1044· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-23 ·cited 28×
  State law claims arising from a collective bargaining agreement are preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA and are subject to a six-month statute of limitations, and equitable modification is not warranted without evidence of excusable ignorance or deceptive conduct.
• Med. Fund-Philadelphia Geriatric Ctr. v. Heckler
  804 F.2d 33· 3d Cir.· 1986-10-24 ·cited 28×
  The court held that claims challenging the legality of agency policy, rather than merely the amount of benefits, fall outside the exclusive jurisdiction of hearing officers and are thus reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
• Nat'l Ctr. FOR Immigrants Rights, Inc. v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  743 F.2d 1365· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction and that the regulation was likely invalid because it lacked individualized determinations and was not sufficiently related to the Immigration and Nationality Act's purposes, justifying a preliminary injunction.
• Hadley Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Schweiker
  689 F.2d 905· 10th Cir.· 1982-09-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) bars federal question jurisdiction for Medicare providers challenging the Malpractice Rule, and that mandamus relief was not appropriate. However, the court vacated the dismissal of Medicaid providers' claims due to a recent statutory change
• Local Div. 519, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO v. Lacrosse Mun. Transit Util. & City of LaCrosse
  585 F.2d 1340· 7th Cir.· 1978-10-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to enforce the 13(c) agreement, and that abstention was not appropriate. The court also found the preliminary injunction was properly issued.
• Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Algona v. Ins. Dep't OF Iowa & Herbert W. Anderson
  571 F.2d 423· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-21 ·cited 28×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  A federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action that essentially asserts defenses to an impending state court action based on state law.
• Hartland v. Alaska Airlines
  544 F.2d 992· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while the orders appealed were not final decisions, it could convert the appeal into a petition for mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 to review the district court's actions.
• 28 E. Jackson Enters., Inc. v. Cullerton
  523 F.2d 439· 7th Cir.· 1975-08-08 ·cited 28×
  The dissenting judge believes the federal court has jurisdiction to enjoin the sale of property despite principles of comity, as the adequacy of state remedies is uncertain.
• Ardale Calvin v. Conlisk
  520 F.2d 1· 7th Cir.· 1975-06-30 ·cited 28×
  The court held that claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against police misconduct are justiciable, and that jurisdiction over the City of Chicago can be established under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 if the jurisdictional amount is met. The court also found that two of the three pla
• Stream Pollution Control Bd. OF the State OF Ind. v. United States Steel Corp.
  512 F.2d 1036· 7th Cir.· 1975-03-14 ·cited 28×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that a private citizen cannot intervene in a federal common law nuisance action under § 505(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 because the underlying action was not commenced to require compliance with an effluent standard or lim
• Bowers v. Campbell
  505 F.2d 1155· 9th Cir.· 1974-10-24 ·cited 28×
• B. B. Adams Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  501 F.2d 176· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the district court's order was not a final, appealable order under Rule 54(b).
• Ybarra v. The City OF the Town OF LOS Altos Hills
  503 F.2d 250· 9th Cir.· 1974-09-06 ·cited 28×
  A large-lot zoning ordinance is constitutional and does not violate equal protection or due process, even if it disproportionately affects low-income individuals, as long as it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
• Driscoll v. Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs
  484 F.2d 682· 7th Cir.· 1973-09-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a union member's challenge to a non-Communist affidavit requirement for candidacy, even if framed as a free speech issue, falls under Title IV of the LMRDA and must be pursued through the Secretary of Labor, not a private suit under Title I. Furthermore, the u
• Pettengill v. Putnam Cnty. R-1 Sch. Dist.
  472 F.2d 121· 8th Cir.· 1973-01-18 ·cited 28×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes over local election irregularities absent specific federal claims like racial discrimination or ballot stuffing.
• Bryant v. Carleson
  444 F.2d 353· 9th Cir.· 1971-05-27 ·cited 28×
• Hunt v. Local Bd. NO. 197
  438 F.2d 1128· 3d Cir.· 1971-02-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction in the district court because his claims involved factual determinations and discretionary judgments by the local board, which are barred from pre-induction review by statute.
• Gertrude McCALL v. Shapiro
  416 F.2d 246· 2d Cir.· 1969-08-11 ·cited 28×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over a claim that a state welfare commissioner misinterpreted federal and state welfare statutes regarding the reimbursement of OASDI benefits, as it does not present a substantial federal question or fall under civil ri
• Creel v. The City OF Atlanta
  399 F.2d 777· 5th Cir.· 1968-08-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a substantial federal question, but that the district court should have abstained or stayed proceedings pending resolution of a related state condemnation action.
• DeLONG Corp. v. The Or. State Hwy. Comm'n
  343 F.2d 911· 9th Cir.· 1965-04-12 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the State of Oregon is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment, and diversity jurisdiction was not established because the state is not a "citizen" for diversity purposes.
• PAN Am. Petroleum Corp. v. Pierson
  284 F.2d 649· 10th Cir.· 1960-10-28 ·cited 28×
• In re the Matter of Sixty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Dollars ($67 v. United States & Drug Enf't Admin.
  901 F.2d 1540· 11th Cir.· 1990-05-23 ·cited 27×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the merits of agency forfeiture decisions, and a delay in processing a remission petition does not violate due process without demonstrable prejudice.
• Consol. Freightways Corp. of Del. v. Kassel
  730 F.2d 1139· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-27 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the Commerce Clause does not secure rights cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and therefore, a prevailing party on a Commerce Clause claim is not entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. The Navajo Indian Tribe
  710 F.2d 587· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-15 ·cited 27×
  The Navajo Tribe possesses the sovereign power to enact and enforce civil laws regulating the conduct of non-Indians who come onto tribal land to repossess vehicles, even if the vehicles were purchased outside reservation boundaries.
• Simon v. United States
  644 F.2d 490· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-07 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a federal court in Louisiana could exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state attorney for tortious injury caused by his acts or omissions in Louisiana, even if the ultimate injury occurred elsewhere, provided those acts were a substantial factor in c
• Seibert v. Baptist
  594 F.2d 423· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-03 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims against IRS officials did not establish a basis for federal court jurisdiction, as they did not present a compensable claim for relief under the Constitution.
• Norman M. Morris Corp. v. Hyman Weinstein
  466 F.2d 137· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-14 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the sale of Omega watches with altered serial numbers and false guarantees constituted unfair competition under federal law, and that the injunction should be modified to require specific disclosures.
• Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n
  465 F.2d 237· 3d Cir.· 1972-07-21 ·cited 27×
  A federal court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction when a state-certificated public utility unilaterally discontinues service without following state procedural rules, especially when the dispute predominantly affects local matters and federal intervention could create unne