28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)

94 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Smith
  676 F.2d 1023· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-24 ·cited 123×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to hear claims of systemic constitutional violations by the INS, even if some claims might otherwise be reviewable only by courts of appeals, and that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required in this case.
• Humana OF S.C., Inc. v. Califano
  590 F.2d 1070· D.C. Cir.· 1978-09-18 ·cited 111×
  The court held that Humana failed to exhaust administrative remedies for its statutory and constitutional claims regarding Medicare reimbursement rates, but its procedural challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act was properly before the court. The court affirmed the distr
• The State Hwy. Comm'n OF Mo. v. Volpe
  479 F.2d 1099· 8th Cir.· 1973-04-02 ·cited 94×
  The court held that the Secretary of Transportation has discretion to withhold unobligated funds apportioned under the Federal-Aid Highway Act, as the "sense of Congress" language is precatory and not a mandatory directive.
• Sheehan v. Army & AIR Force Exch. Serv.
  619 F.2d 1132· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-27 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over Sheehan's wrongful discharge claim against AAFES, based on the Tucker Act for monetary relief and federal question jurisdiction combined with the Administrative Procedure Act for nonmonetary relief.
• Rowe v. United States
  633 F.2d 799· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-28 ·cited 60×
  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.
• Manual de J. Gomez v. Wilson
  477 F.2d 411· D.C. Cir.· 1973-03-23 ·cited 54×
  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.
• Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. Martin
  643 F.2d 1376· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-01 ·cited 50×
  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.
• Parks v. United States Internal Revenue Serv.
  618 F.2d 677· 10th Cir.· 1980-03-27 ·cited 49×
  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 State OF Wash. v. The Am. League OF Prof'l Baseball Clubs
  460 F.2d 654· 9th Cir.· 1972-04-07 ·cited 47×
  The court held that a case removed to federal court based on federal antitrust claims, which are exclusively within federal jurisdiction, must be remanded to state court if the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, even if the federal court would have had original juris
• Lon C. Sigafus v. Sheriff Herald D. Brown
  416 F.2d 105· 7th Cir.· 1969-08-04 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a pro se complaint alleging destruction of legal papers necessary for a post-conviction hearing, which frustrates access to the courts, states a claim under the Civil Rights Act and should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.
• Smith v. Grimm
  534 F.2d 1346· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-13 ·cited 44×
  The court held that there was no valid federal jurisdictional basis for the lawsuit, as the dispute was primarily a state law contract issue and not a substantial federal question or a proper case for mandamus.
• Wright v. State OF Tenn.
  628 F.2d 949· 6th Cir.· 1980-08-11 ·cited 42×
  The Sixth Circuit en banc held that the 180-day notice requirement under the ADEA is not a jurisdictional prerequisite, allowing for equitable tolling, and overruled prior precedent to the contrary.
• Gerard and Gemma Brault v. Town OF Milton
  527 F.2d 730· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-24 ·cited 42×
• Trans-Bay Eng'rs & Builders, Inc. v. Hills
  D.D.C.· 1976-12-30 ·cited 41×
  The court held that Trans-Bay is conditionally entitled to recover retained construction funds under equitable doctrines, reversing summary judgment for HUD and Advance.
• Bradford Audio Corp. v. Pious
  392 F.2d 67· 2d Cir.· 1968-03-29 ·cited 40×
  A court-appointed receiver, acting under a facially valid court order, is immune from liability for seizing property as directed by that order, and a claim for seizure of property rights does not fall under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Marcus Garvey Square, Inc. v. Winston Burnett Constr. Co. OF Cal., Inc.
  595 F.2d 1126· 9th Cir.· 1979-01-18 ·cited 38×
  The dissenting judge would find that jurisdiction existed and the general contractor is entitled to recover contractually retained percentages and unpaid progress payments.
• In re "agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation
  635 F.2d 987· 2d Cir.· 1980-11-24 ·cited 37×
  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.
• Indus. Indem., Inc. v. Moon Landrieu
  615 F.2d 644· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-14 ·cited 34×
  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.
• Eli M. Spark v. The Catholic Univ. of Am.
  510 F.2d 1277· D.C. Cir.· 1975-04-07 ·cited 34×
  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
• The State OF Tex. v. Reuben Pankey
  441 F.2d 236· 10th Cir.· 1971-02-08 ·cited 33×
  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.
• League TO Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency
  507 F.2d 517· 9th Cir.· 1974-11-22 ·cited 32×
  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.
• Keaukaha-Panaewa Cmty. Ass'n v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n
  588 F.2d 1216· 9th Cir.· 1978-09-18 ·cited 31×
  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.
• 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×
  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.
• 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×
  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
• Gertrude McCALL v. Shapiro
  416 F.2d 246· 2d Cir.· 1969-08-11 ·cited 28×
  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
• The State OF N.D. v. Merchs. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co.
  634 F.2d 368· 8th Cir.· 1980-08-06 ·cited 26×
  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.
• Fort Sumter Tours, Inc. v. Andrus
  564 F.2d 1119· 4th Cir.· 1977-11-03 ·cited 26×
  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.
• Commonwealth OF Mass. v. United States Veterans Admin.
  541 F.2d 119· 1st Cir.· 1976-08-26 ·cited 26×
  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.
• State OF Tenn. ex rel. William M. Leech, Jr. v. Dole
  749 F.2d 331· 6th Cir.· 1984-11-29 ·cited 24×
  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.
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. Coastal Petroleum Co.
  671 F.2d 419· 11th Cir.· 1982-03-04 ·cited 24×
  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.
• Nat'l Treas. Emps. Union v. Campbell
  589 F.2d 669· D.C. Cir.· 1978-11-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing claims for lack of jurisdiction and that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act, specifically 5 U.S.C. § 8912, provides jurisdiction for suits challenging rates negotiated under the Act. It also held that summary judgm
• Hines v. Cenla Cmty. Action Comm., Inc.
  474 F.2d 1052· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-06 ·cited 22×
• Rodriguez v. Ritchey
  539 F.2d 394· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-22 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a federal law enforcement officer participating in a criminal investigation culminating in a lawful indictment and arrest cannot be held liable for damages if the indictment is later dismissed, absent a constitutional violation or federal common law claim.
• Harary v. Blumenthal
  555 F.2d 1113· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-19 ·cited 20×
  An acquittal in a criminal trial does not collaterally estop a subsequent administrative disbarment proceeding due to differing standards of proof, and misrepresenting fees to a client violates IRS regulations.
• Ms. Mary Ryan v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  565 F.2d 762· D.C. Cir.· 1977-10-25 ·cited 18×
  Federal agencies have a duty to ensure handicapped individuals receive equal opportunity in job assignments and promotions, and failure to comply allows for judicial review.
• Girardier v. Webster Coll.
  563 F.2d 1267· 8th Cir.· 1977-08-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a private college's refusal to issue transcripts to former students who discharged loan obligations in bankruptcy does not conflict with the Bankruptcy Act.
• Den Hartigh v. Latin
  485 F.2d 1068· D.C. Cir.· 1973-10-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the District Court erred in transferring cases to Superior Court based solely on District of Columbia v. Carter, as federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) may exist for claims of constitutional violations by D.C. officers, and the amount in co
• Louella S. Da'Ville v. Wise
  470 F.2d 1364· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the notice of appeal was timely filed, and the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act is the exclusive remedy for the wrongful death of an offshore worker due to employer or co-employee negligence.
• Cupo v. Cmty. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF NEW York
  438 F.2d 108· 2d Cir.· 1971-02-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1337 for claims arising under the National Banking Act, regardless of the amount in controversy.
• League TO Save Lake Tahoe, Inc. v. Trounday
  598 F.2d 1164· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-15 ·cited 16×
  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×
  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.
• League TO Save Lake Tahoe v. B.J.K. Corp.
  547 F.2d 1072· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-08 ·cited 16×
  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.
• Wright v. Ark. Activities Ass'n (AAA)
  501 F.2d 25· 8th Cir.· 1974-07-16 ·cited 16×
  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.
• Navajo Tribal Util. Auth. v. Ariz. Dep't OF Revenue
  608 F.2d 1228· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority's claims because 28 U.S.C. § 1362 does not apply to subordinate tribal entities, and other jurisdictional bases were barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1341.
• Am. Ass'n OF Commodity Traders v. Dep't OF the Treas.
  598 F.2d 1233· 1st Cir.· 1979-05-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, affirming the dismissal.
• Fla. Nursing Home Ass'n v. Page
  616 F.2d 1355· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-16 ·cited 13×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar prospective relief requiring a state agency to comply with federal law, and a state waives Eleventh Amendment immunity by contracting to abide by federal laws applicable to a federal program.
• Westmoreland Hosp. Ass'n v. Blue Cross OF Western Pennsylvania
  605 F.2d 119· 3d Cir.· 1979-09-10 ·cited 13×
  Federal question jurisdiction exists if the complaint, on its face, requires interpretation of federal statutes or regulations, even if state law claims are also present.
• Payne v. Gov't OF the Dist. OF Columbia
  D.D.C.· 1977-06-07 ·cited 13×
  The court, in a special concurrence, notes that the monetary value of the rights allegedly violated may not meet the jurisdictional amount and directs the trial court to consider this and other issues arising from a recent amendment to the jurisdictional statute.
• Mich. Sav. & Loan League v. Francis
  683 F.2d 957· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-08 ·cited 12×
• Shands v. Tull
  602 F.2d 1156· 3d Cir.· 1979-07-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Social Security Act and its regulations require substantial, not total, compliance from states regarding welfare benefit appeal timelines, and New Jersey's performance met this standard.