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

• Coral Constr. Co. v. King Cnty.
  941 F.2d 910· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a minority set-aside program requires a proper statistical foundation to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest, and post-enactment studies can be considered but must allow for rebuttal by the challenging party.
• Glickstein v. SUN Bank/Miami, N.A.
  922 F.2d 666· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-28 ·cited 26×
  The district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of standing and failure to exhaust probate remedies; Glickstein's subsequent appointment as personal representative cures the capacity defect, and the probate exception and exhaustion doctrines do not bar the action.
• Goulding v. Feinglass
  811 F.2d 1099· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiff's claims for lack of federal jurisdiction and properly denied his motion to amend the complaint.
• Weeks Constr., Inc. v. Oglala Sioux Hous. Auth.
  797 F.2d 668· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed Weeks' breach of contract action against the Oglala Sioux Housing Authority for lack of federal jurisdiction and that claims against the United States and HUD for damages over $10,000 belong exclusively in the Claims Cour
• Beck v. Commc'ns Workers OF Am. (C.W.A.)
  776 F.2d 1187· 4th Cir.· 1985-10-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the statutory claim under the NLRA and the duty of fair representation claim provided a basis for federal jurisdiction, allowing the judgment to be affirmed even if the constitutional claim lacked jurisdiction. The court also affirmed the district court's dete
• Award Serv., Inc. v. N. Cal. Retail Clerks Unions & Food Emp'rs Joint Pension Tr. Fund
  763 F.2d 1066· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that an employer has a right of action under ERISA to seek restitution of mistakenly paid contributions, but not under the LMRA. The dismissal of the ERISA claim and pendent state claims is reversed.
• John H. Freeman, M.D. v. Jacques Orthopaedic & Joint Implant Surgery Med. Grp., Inc.
  721 F.2d 654· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff was not a participant in the ERISA plan and the alleged acts occurred before ERISA's effective date.
• R.J. Williams Co. v. Fort Belknap Hous. Auth.
  719 F.2d 979· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-31 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the dispute requires interpretation of tribal law, which must first be decided by the tribal court. Federal question jurisdiction was denied as no federal claim was stated, and diversity jurisdictio
• Quackenbush v. Johnson City Sch. Dist.
  716 F.2d 141· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) provides an exclusive remedy, and a plaintiff cannot bypass its administrative procedures to seek damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Carter v. J.L. Kurzejeski
  706 F.2d 835· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-05 ·cited 26×
  Federal employees and their union must pursue claims of anti-union animus and related constitutional violations through the exclusive administrative and arbitral procedures established by the Civil Service Reform Act, rather than through an independent action in federal district
• Fountain v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth.
  678 F.2d 1038· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over claims alleging a taking of property for public use without just compensation, even if the entity lacks eminent domain power, but that abstention is appropriate pending resolution of a parallel state court a
• Dillard v. Brown
  652 F.2d 316· 3d Cir.· 1981-06-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a female enlistee's constitutional challenge to a military regulation barring single parents with minor dependents from enlistment is justiciable, and that summary judgment was improperly granted on the existing record.
• Lehman v. Lycoming Cnty. Child's. Servs. Agency
  648 F.2d 135· 3d Cir.· 1981-03-31 ·cited 26×
  The district court erroneously dismissed the habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction.
• The State OF N.D. v. Merchs. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co.
  634 F.2d 368· 8th Cir.· 1980-08-06 ·cited 26×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that pendent jurisdiction existed for the state unfair competition claim against the banks, and that federal law did not preempt the state law in this instance.
• Appling Cnty. v. Mun. Elec. Auth. OF Ga.
  621 F.2d 1301· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-23 ·cited 26×
  The district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs' constitutional claims were insubstantial and the county lacked standing.
• Walker v. Washington
  627 F.2d 541· D.C. Cir.· 1980-06-30 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed summary judgment for the appellees, holding that the agency's dismissal of the appellant was not arbitrary, capricious, or procedurally defective, and that the appellant's constitutional claims were frivolous.
• Domingo Roque Molina v. Paul T. Richardson & the City of Los Angeles
  578 F.2d 846· 9th Cir.· 1978-07-21 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's decision, find jurisdiction, and infer a cause of action against the city directly from the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Fort Sumter Tours, Inc. v. Andrus
  564 F.2d 1119· 4th Cir.· 1977-11-03 ·cited 26×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the district court properly exercised its equity jurisdiction and correctly granted a preliminary injunction based on the balance of hardships, finding serious questions regarding the observance of statutory preference rights.
• The Network Project v. Corp. FOR Pub. Broad.
  561 F.2d 963· D.C. Cir.· 1977-07-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the District Court erred in dismissing the First Amendment claims for lack of jurisdiction or substantive merit, and that these claims should be remanded for disposition on the merits. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the statutory claims under the
• Lloyd A. FRY Roofing Co. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  554 F.2d 885· 8th Cir.· 1977-05-11 ·cited 26×
  A party subject to an EPA abatement order under the Clean Air Act cannot maintain a pre-enforcement action to challenge the order; such claims must be raised as a defense or counterclaim in an enforcement action brought by the EPA. Furthermore, challenges to the constitutionality
• Commonwealth OF Mass. v. United States Veterans Admin.
  541 F.2d 119· 1st Cir.· 1976-08-26 ·cited 26×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the Commonwealth's suit against the VA hospital was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, both under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act's citizen suit provision due to insufficient notice and under federal common law due to sovereign immunity.
• Howard v. Colbert Higgins
  379 F.2d 227· 10th Cir.· 1967-06-01 ·cited 26×
  Federal jurisdiction is lacking under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) for a claim alleging only the deprivation of a property right.
• Miller v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  341 F.2d 964· 9th Cir.· 1965-02-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that allegations of a due process violation arising from a tax sale are sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction, even if diversity jurisdiction is lacking.
• Helene P. Pierre v. Jordan
  333 F.2d 951· 9th Cir.· 1964-06-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appeal was timely and that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, as the primary purpose of the suit was to challenge the formation of a local water district, not to redress constitutional rights deprivat
• Harvey v. Sadler
  331 F.2d 387· 9th Cir.· 1964-04-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted against any of the defendants.
• Harrison-Halsted Cmty. Grp., Inc. v. Hous. & Home Fin. Agency
  310 F.2d 99· 7th Cir.· 1962-11-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue in federal court and failed to raise a substantial federal question, thus affirming the district court's dismissal.
• E. States Petroleum Corp. v. Rogers
  280 F.2d 611· D.C. Cir.· 1960-05-12 ·cited 26×
  The District Court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, as the Customs Court has exclusive jurisdiction over import tax disputes, and a single judge can dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
• Jacobson v. New York
  206 F.2d 153· 1st Cir.· 1953-07-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of federal question jurisdiction, as the Safety Appliance Acts do not create a private right of action for passengers, and diversity jurisdiction was absent.
• Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n OF Puerto RICO
  906 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1990-06-21 ·cited 25×
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction exists for a suit seeking to enjoin state officials from enforcing state laws preempted by federal statutes, and that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action to enforce the immunity granted by the Cable Act.
• Gulf States Paper Corp. v. Ingram
  811 F.2d 1464· 11th Cir.· 1987-03-09 ·cited 25×
  The court held that an employer's denial of a reservist's leave request for military training was unreasonable under the Veterans' Reemployment Rights Act when the employee acted in good faith and there were no apparent alternatives, despite the leave's length and burden on the e
• N. Side Lumber Co. v. Block
  753 F.2d 1482· 9th Cir.· 1985-02-20 ·cited 25×
  The Tucker Act does not impliedly forbid equitable relief or preclude waiver of sovereign immunity for claims that government contracts were void.
• Mays v. Kirk
  414 F.2d 131· 5th Cir.· 1969-07-10 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims regarding title to land under the Swamp Lands Act of 1850 did not present a substantial federal question, as the Secretary of the Interior's determination of land status is conclusive absent fraud.
• The Quinault Tribe OF Indians OF the Quinault Reservation IN the State OF Wash. v. Gallagher
  368 F.2d 648· 9th Cir.· 1966-09-19 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a newly enacted jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1362, applies to pending appeals and grants jurisdiction to the Indian tribe, but the tribe's claims regarding state assumption of jurisdiction fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
• Sims v. State
  862 F.2d 1449· 11th Cir.· 1989-01-11 ·cited 24×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's decision. The court held that Florida Statute § 320.02(9) violates the Clean Air Act, as Congress has exclusively reserved to the federal government the enforcement of federal emission standards prior
• Commonwealth OF Mass. v. Departmental Grant Appeals Bd. OF the United States Dep't OF Health & Human Servs.
  815 F.2d 778· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-30 ·cited 24×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction because the Commonwealth's claim sought monetary relief, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Claims Court under the Tucker Act.
• State OF Tenn. ex rel. William M. Leech, Jr. v. Dole
  749 F.2d 331· 6th Cir.· 1984-11-29 ·cited 24×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the federal government is entitled to restitution for its share of bid rigging settlement funds paid to the state for federally funded projects, and that the district court has jurisdiction over the matter.
• Sandefur v. William A. Cherry, M.D.
  718 F.2d 682· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-13 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of federal claims but certified a state law claim regarding Louisiana's Medicaid reimbursement policies for optometrists and ophthalmologists to the Louisiana Supreme Court.
• Jordan v. United States
  694 F.2d 833· D.C. Cir.· 1982-11-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying relief under Rule 60(b) from the dismissal of the complaint due to a technical defect in service on the United States, where the failure was not attributable to the appellants and the government suffered no prejudice.
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. Coastal Petroleum Co.
  671 F.2d 419· 11th Cir.· 1982-03-04 ·cited 24×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the dispute over land title, even if hinging on navigability at statehood, was governed by state law once title passed from the federal government.
• Local Div. 732 v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth.
  667 F.2d 1327· 11th Cir.· 1982-01-29 ·cited 24×
  The panel majority incorrectly held that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over suits to enforce labor protective agreements under section 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transit Act.
• Warren v. Gov't Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n
  611 F.2d 1229· 8th Cir.· 1980-01-02 ·cited 24×
• R.I. Hosp. v. Califano
  585 F.2d 1153· 1st Cir.· 1978-10-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Medicare dispute because the hospital failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h), and that the Medicaid claim was inextricably tied to the Medicare dispute, thus al
• Prescription Plan Serv. Corp. v. Franco
  552 F.2d 493· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-04 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the federal question claim but erred in dismissing the diversity claim, as the non-diverse trustees were not indispensable parties and leave to amend should be granted.
• Lecil Hander v. SAN Jacinto Junior Coll.
  522 F.2d 204· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-29 ·cited 24×
  Jurisdiction in this case is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and Texas junior college districts are not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.
• Local 1498 v. Am. Fed'n OF Gov't Emps.
  522 F.2d 486· 3d Cir.· 1975-08-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) does not apply to unions composed exclusively of federal government employees, and therefore, federal courts lack jurisdiction over claims brought under the LMRDA against such unions and their officers.
• Francis P. and E. Edith McCULLOUGH v. Redev. Auth. OF the City OF Wilkes-Barre
  522 F.2d 858· 3d Cir.· 1975-07-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Urban Renewal Handbook provisions do not mandate acquisition of individual properties based on owner cost or financial resources, nor do they confer a right to have properties acquired.
• Muskegon Theatres, Inc. v. City OF Muskegon
  507 F.2d 199· 6th Cir.· 1974-12-05 ·cited 24×
  The district court had the power to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the eminent domain claim but should have retained jurisdiction pending state court proceedings.
• Petersen v. Talisman Sugar Corp.
  478 F.2d 73· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the company's labor camp, functioning as a company town, is subject to First Amendment restraints, requiring reasonable access for the public to communicate with workers, and that the plaintiffs have standing to assert their own rights to disseminate informati
• Partain v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Montgomery
  467 F.2d 167· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-13 ·cited 24×
  A national bank charging compounded interest on credit card balances violates federal usury laws, even if state law might have permitted it under different circumstances, leading to forfeiture of all interest charged.
• Bright v. Louie B. Nunn
  448 F.2d 245· 6th Cir.· 1971-09-24 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Governor and University President acted within their authority in imposing restrictions during campus disorders, and these actions did not violate students' First Amendment rights.