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

• Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists v. Cornstubble
  295 F.2d 209· 5th Cir.· 1961-10-13 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority's interpretation leads to an illogical result regarding federal court access for airline labor disputes.
• Davis v. Foreman
  251 F.2d 421· 7th Cir.· 1958-01-22 ·cited 18×
• Resnick v. KrunchCash, LLC
  34 F.4th 1028· 11th Cir.· 2022-05-20 ·cited 17×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' due process claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the claim was not so insubstantial or frivolous as to strip the court of its power to adjudicate.
• Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc. v. Thornburgh
  956 F.2d 914· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-13 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district courts had jurisdiction to hear challenges to INS regulations implementing IRCA, and that the courts had the equitable power to extend the legalization application deadline for aliens deterred by unlawful INS interpretations.
• Chilicky v. Schweiker
  796 F.2d 1131· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-12 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the constitutional tort claim and that while qualified immunity shielded officials from liability for accelerating the CDR process and nonacquiescence, other alleged due process violations required furthe
• S. Ohio Coal Co. v. Donovan
  774 F.2d 693· 6th Cir.· 1985-10-02 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district courts had jurisdiction to hear the operators' constitutional due process claims challenging the Mine Commission's Rule 44, and that the claims were not mooted by settlements with miners, nor barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
• ITT World Commc'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  699 F.2d 1219· D.C. Cir.· 1983-02-01 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing ITT's ultra vires claim for lack of standing and ripeness, and that subject matter jurisdiction was proper. It also modified the FOIA disclosure order, reversing it in part and affirming it in part.
• Russell v. Bartley
  494 F.2d 334· 6th Cir.· 1974-03-27 ·cited 17×
  The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) does not create an implied private right of action for damages resulting from its violations.
• Skolnick v. Otto Spolar
  317 F.2d 857· 7th Cir.· 1963-05-07 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under federal jurisdiction, as the alleged actions did not constitute a deprivation of rights under color of state law.
• U.S. Bank v. Taveras
  2017 WL 5248499· M.D. Fla.· 2023-10-17 ·cited 16×
  The court denied defendants' motion for a stay pending appeal because they failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or establish any basis for federal jurisdiction.
• Chabal v. Reagan
  822 F.2d 349· 3d Cir.· 1987-06-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it has appellate jurisdiction over the non-monetary claims because the district court's jurisdiction was not based, in whole or in part, on the Tucker Act, but remanded for the plaintiff to elect whether to waive monetary claims exceeding $10,000 to allow the
• W. 14TH St. Commercial Corp. v. 5 W. 14TH Owners Corp.
  815 F.2d 188· 2d Cir.· 1987-03-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction was proper because the Condominium and Cooperative Abuse Relief Act provides a private right of action, and alternatively, because the state law claims presented a substantial federal question. Furthermore, the court found that t
• Sharp v. Caspar Weinberger
  798 F.2d 1521· D.C. Cir.· 1986-08-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's jurisdiction was not based on the Little Tucker Act, as the appellant's claims for equitable relief were properly grounded in the Administrative Procedure Act, and claims for contract breach seek
• Solomon Monk v. Secretary OF the Navy
  793 F.2d 364· D.C. Cir.· 1986-06-20 ·cited 16×
  The court lacks jurisdiction to hear the habeas corpus action because it was not filed where the petitioner's immediate custodian resides.
• Geis v. Bd. of Educ. of Parsippany-Troy Hills
  774 F.2d 575· 3d Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that federal courts have jurisdiction to enforce state-mandated educational standards that exceed the federal minimum under the Education of the Handicapped Act, and that the district court did not err in finding that New Jersey's standard required a placement that
• Fairview Twp. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  773 F.2d 517· 3d Cir.· 1985-09-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the citizens' suit as seeking money damages, but that the suit must be dismissed because the EPA Administrator was not under a nondiscretionary duty to review the application within 45 days. However, the district court ha
• Weatherford v. Dole
  763 F.2d 392· 10th Cir.· 1985-06-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a federal employee reassigned to a similar position without change in grade or pay cannot sue in federal district court for damages or reinstatement based on alleged due process violations or denial of appeal rights.
• In re the Est. OF Michael Patrick Smith v. Heckler
  747 F.2d 583· 10th Cir.· 1984-10-29 ·cited 16×
  The Secretary of Health and Human Services has a statutory duty to develop and implement a system that ensures nursing facilities receiving federal funds provide high-quality patient care, not just theoretical capability.
• Harper v. McDonald
  679 F.2d 955· D.C. Cir.· 1982-06-08 ·cited 16×
  The district court possesses jurisdiction over an action seeking recovery directly under the Constitution, provided the claims are not wholly insubstantial or frivolous.
• Hopewell Nursing Home v. Schweiker
  666 F.2d 34· 4th Cir.· 1981-11-30 ·cited 16×
• Alamo Navajo Sch. Bd., Inc. v. Andrus
  664 F.2d 229· 10th Cir.· 1981-11-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute was a contract claim exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, and the Bureau's duty to provide contingency funds was discretionary, not ministerial.
• Hargrave v. OKI Nursery, Inc.
  646 F.2d 716· 2d Cir.· 1980-12-19 ·cited 16×
  A federal district court, having acquired personal jurisdiction over a defendant for one claim under state long-arm statute, has the power to adjudicate all related claims arising from a common nucleus of operative fact, even if state law would limit state courts to only the clai
• Kechijian v. Califano
  621 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1980-03-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies and federal question jurisdiction was barred by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).
• League TO Save Lake Tahoe, Inc. v. Trounday
  598 F.2d 1164· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-15 ·cited 16×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act grant federal jurisdiction for citizen suits alleging violations of indirect source review programs, but the appellants failed to state a claim because they did not allege a violation of a specific emission limitation,
• Sydney Spiegel v. Sch. Dist. NO. 1
  600 F.2d 264· 10th Cir.· 1979-06-14 ·cited 16×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal civil rights claim was barred by the statute of limitations because he failed to file within two years of his termination, and his prior state court action did not toll the limitations period.
• The Am. Ass'n OF Councils OF Med. Staffs OF Private Hosps., Inc. v. Califano
  575 F.2d 1367· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Medicare Act, incorporating 42 U.S.C. § 405(h), precludes federal district court review of the Secretary's decisions, even for statutory or constitutional claims.
• League TO Save Lake Tahoe v. B.J.K. Corp.
  547 F.2d 1072· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-08 ·cited 16×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  Questions concerning the interpretation and application of TRPA ordinances present federal questions under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), as differing interpretations could impair the effectiveness of the Compact.
• Parks v. Harden
  504 F.2d 861· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the regulation allowing optional AFDC payments to expectant mothers was a valid exercise of agency discretion and did not mandate payments for unborn children.
• Ingraham v. Wright
  498 F.2d 248· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing all three counts of the plaintiffs' complaint, reversing the decision and remanding for further proceedings.
• Wright v. Ark. Activities Ass'n (AAA)
  501 F.2d 25· 8th Cir.· 1974-07-16 ·cited 16×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the Arkansas Activities Association's disciplinary ruling violated due process by imposing sanctions without fair notice of potential penalties for violating its regulations.
• Licia T. M. Cardinale v. Wash. Tech. Inst.
  500 F.2d 791· D.C. Cir.· 1974-06-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently stated a claim arising under the Constitution to invoke the District Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
• James v. Lusby
  499 F.2d 488· D.C. Cir.· 1974-04-24 ·cited 16×
  The District Court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the case to the Superior Court because the record did not demonstrate to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold.
• Randall v. Goldmark
  495 F.2d 356· 1st Cir.· 1974-04-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that mortgage payments made by an estranged husband directly to a mortgagee constitute a 'currently available resource' that a state agency can consider when determining AFDC shelter allowances.
• Akron Bd. OF Educ. & Conrad C. Ott v. State Bd. OF Educ. OF Ohio
  490 F.2d 1285· 6th Cir.· 1974-01-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that plaintiffs have standing to sue and should be permitted to amend their complaint to add parties and assert jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
• Weddle v. Dir., Patuxent Inst.
  436 F.2d 342· 4th Cir.· 1970-12-30 ·cited 16×
  Jurisdiction for purely property claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires satisfaction of the amount in controversy requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, not 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3).
• Uwamie Tomiyasu v. Golden
  358 F.2d 651· 9th Cir.· 1966-03-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on res judicata, but should have abstained from exercising jurisdiction, remanding for dismissal without prejudice.
• Mrs. Vesta G. Johnston v. Byrd
  354 F.2d 982· 5th Cir.· 1965-12-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the statutory requirement of a bond for a claimant of property levied under execution does not violate due process or equal protection.
• Sarelas v. Sheehan
  326 F.2d 490· 7th Cir.· 1963-12-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a plaintiff alleging mere procedural errors in state court proceedings, without a showing of constitutional deprivation, cannot maintain a federal civil rights action against a deposition officer.
• Garden Homes, Inc. v. Mason
  249 F.2d 71· 1st Cir.· 1957-10-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute, and that federal jurisdiction was properly established.
• Art Johnston v. Earle
  245 F.2d 793· 9th Cir.· 1957-02-28 ·cited 16×
• Porter v. Bennison
  180 F.2d 523· 10th Cir.· 1950-03-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction because the claims primarily involved state probate matters, not federal law, and diversity jurisdiction was not properly established for such claims.
• Gonzalez Ex Rel. Gonzalez v. Reno
  86 F. Supp. 2d 1167· S.D. Fla.· 2000-03-21 ·cited 15×
  The court held that it has subject matter jurisdiction to review the INS's refusal to adjudicate Elian Gonzalez's asylum application, distinguishing this from unreviewable enforcement decisions or withdrawal of admission applications.
• After v. United States
  766 F.2d 347· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-27 ·cited 15×
  The court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review tribal resolutions interpreting tribal law and that appellants failed to exhaust administrative remedies regarding BIA actions. Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 failed due to the inability of a tribal council to conspire
• Joseph F. O'Toole & Marjorie C. O'Toole v. Arlington Tr. Co.
  681 F.2d 94· 1st Cir.· 1982-06-29 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of federal question and diversity jurisdiction, as the bank was not an ERISA fiduciary and the appellants failed to prove domicile in Florida.
• Crawford v. Griffin Bell
  599 F.2d 890· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-27 ·cited 15×
  The court held that dismissal of a habeas corpus petition is proper if it does not challenge the legality of confinement, and that dismissal of individual claims duplicative of a class action is also proper, but claims beyond the scope of the class action should not be dismissed
• Mass. State Pharm. Ass'n v. Fed. Prescription Serv., Inc.
  431 F.2d 130· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-13 ·cited 15×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish the requisite $10,000 jurisdictional amount, either individually or through aggregation, to support federal jurisdiction.
• Heriberto Morales v. Yeutter
  952 F.2d 954· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Department of Agriculture's regulation excluding sod from the Seasonal Agricultural Worker (SAW) amnesty program was not arbitrary and capricious, and therefore valid.
• Elease Thornton v. Sw. Detroit Hosp.
  895 F.2d 1131· 6th Cir.· 1990-02-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and affirmed the district court's finding that the patient's condition had stabilized prior to discharge.
• Hydrostorage, Inc. v. N. Cal. Boilermakers Local Joint Apprenticeship Comm.
  891 F.2d 719· 9th Cir.· 1989-12-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that the administrative order was preempted by ERISA because the apprenticeship standards and fund constituted an employee welfare benefit plan.
• Connors v. Amax Coal Co., Inc.
  858 F.2d 1226· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the Black Lung Benefits Act and incorporated Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act procedures require administrative exhaustion and appellate review for disput