28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)

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

• Aurora Gazmin Navarro v. Dist. Dir. OF the United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  574 F.2d 379· 7th Cir.· 1978-04-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff's failure to qualify as a registered nurse within two years constituted good and sufficient cause for the Attorney General to revoke her third preference status petition, and that the INS was not estopped from doing so.
• The Memphis Am. Fed'n OF Teachers v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF Memphis City Schs.
  534 F.2d 699· 6th Cir.· 1976-04-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Board of Education's grant of exclusive privileges to the majority union did not violate the rival union's First Amendment rights and survived rational basis scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
• In re Thornburgh
  869 F.2d 1503· D.C. Cir.· 1989-03-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that mandamus is not appropriate because the district court's reference to special masters is not a clear usurpation of judicial power and the possibility of some valid relief cannot be confidently ruled out.
• Schreiber v. Lugar
  518 F.2d 1099· 7th Cir.· 1975-07-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that individual taxpayer claims cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement for federal question jurisdiction, and the civil rights claim was frivolous.
• Winningham v. United States Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  512 F.2d 617· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and that the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, as applied to the plaintiff, did not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process clauses of the Fifth Amendment.
• Blassingame v. Secretary OF the Navy
  811 F.2d 65· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the right to judicial review of a Correction Board decision accrues at the time of the Board's decision, not the original discharge, and that the district court improperly granted summary judgment without fair notice.
• United States v. Perry
  706 F.2d 278· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Perrys' counterclaims were barred by sovereign immunity and affirmed the district court's dismissal.
• Vern F. Chumney and Marjorie Ann Chumney v. Nixon
  615 F.2d 389· 6th Cir.· 1980-01-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a civil cause of action for damages can be implied from federal criminal statutes designed to protect passengers on aircraft, even if the statutes only explicitly provide criminal penalties.
• Hosp. SAN Jorge, Inc. v. United States Secretary OF Health
  598 F.2d 684· 1st Cir.· 1979-05-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction was barred by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) and that the hospital's constitutional claims lacked merit or were procedurally barred.
• Laden v. Andrus
  595 F.2d 482· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Department of Interior properly determined the land was mineral in character and the purchaser was not an innocent purchaser for value, thus denying the patent application.
• Wyandotte Chems. Corp. v. City OF Wyandotte
  321 F.2d 927· 6th Cir.· 1963-08-21 ·cited 8×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Michigan law provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for challenging ad valorem tax assessments, thus barring federal intervention under the Johnson Act.
• Nalore v. SAN Diego Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  663 F.2d 841· 9th Cir.· 1981-09-23 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a federal preemption defense does not create federal question jurisdiction for removal purposes when the underlying claim arises solely from state law.
• Friedlander v. Joseph Cimino, M.D.
  520 F.2d 318· 2d Cir.· 1975-07-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged purposeful discrimination to establish a substantial federal question, thus reversing the dismissal.
• Adelt v. Richmond Sch. Dist.
  439 F.2d 718· 9th Cir.· 1971-03-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction, as the claim was a state law contract dispute and not a federal question.
• Monks v. Clark Hetherington
  573 F.2d 1164· 10th Cir.· 1978-03-30 ·cited 5×
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action seeking to establish a defense to a state law claim, even if that defense arises under federal law.
• SAN Juan Legal Servs., Inc. v. Legal Servs. Corp.
  655 F.2d 434· 1st Cir.· 1981-07-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Legal Services Corporation had grounds to terminate funding for San Juan Legal Services due to program deficiencies and procedural fairness, and that San Juan was entitled to judicial review.
• S. SOG, Inc. v. Roland
  644 F.2d 376· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the federal district court had jurisdiction over Southern Sog's claim to the HUD escrow fund, but claims against HUD officials acting within their scope of employment were barred by sovereign immunity.
• Smith v. Washington
  593 F.2d 1097· D.C. Cir.· 1978-08-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the record did not permit a finding to a legal certainty that the jurisdictional amount was not satisfied, thus affirming the result.
• Inland OIL & Transp. Co. v. Brock Adams (previously William T. Coleman
  575 F.2d 184· 8th Cir.· 1978-04-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims became moot after the barges were certified and sold to third parties, rendering the controversy with the federal defendants nonexistent and the controversy with the builder pending elsewhere.
• The Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Martinez
  519 F.2d 479· 10th Cir.· 1975-07-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a simple breach of contract action brought by an Indian tribe does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, and thus the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1362.
• Texaco Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  481 F.2d 70· 10th Cir.· 1973-07-13 ·cited 4×
  A claim based on contract, even if indirectly related to federal law or requiring reference to federal agency rates, does not arise under federal law for jurisdictional purposes.
• State OF Ga. v. City OF Chattanooga
  406 F.2d 830· 6th Cir.· 1969-02-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Georgia's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the seizure of property moving in interstate commerce raised substantial federal questions.
• Simpson v. State OF Utah
  365 F.2d 185· 10th Cir.· 1966-08-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a dispute over title to reliction lands, even if derived from federal patents, does not automatically confer federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) unless the controversy is determinable by interpretation of federal law.
• A. C. McKOY, Inc. v. Schonwald
  341 F.2d 737· 10th Cir.· 1965-02-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court correctly dismissed the action for insufficiency of the amount in controversy, thus affirming the dismissal without reaching the merits.
• Mary v. Beck
  293 F.2d 333· 6th Cir.· 1961-07-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff's complaint did not present a federal question requiring construction of federal law. The nature of the title and the deed's restrictive clause are matters of state law.
• Ammons v. Dade City
  594 F. Supp. 1274· M.D. Fla.· 1984-09-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the City of Dade City engaged in unconstitutional racial discrimination by providing unequal municipal services, specifically street paving, to its black residents.
• Wallace v. State OF Okla.
  721 F.2d 301· 10th Cir.· 1983-11-14 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars a suit against the State of Oklahoma for attorneys' fees incurred in a prior state court proceeding, as the state has not waived its immunity from suit in federal court.
• Merrill Ditch-Liners, Inc. v. Nat Pablo
  670 F.2d 139· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Secretary's approval of a loan recipient's contract award, based on the agency's determination of repayment assurance, is an action committed to agency discretion and therefore not subject to judicial review.
• Jensen v. Mitschele Contracting Co.
  630 F.2d 209· 3d Cir.· 1980-09-26 ·cited 2×
  A demand for access to corporate papers to prepare a federal estate tax return does not constitute a case arising under federal law sufficient to confer federal subject matter jurisdiction.
• Gorman v. Army & AIR Force Exch. Serv.
  619 F.2d 1141· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over a wrongful discharge claim against AAFES, even if not explicitly stated in the complaint.
• Cervase v. Off. of the Fed. Register
  580 F.2d 1166· 3d Cir.· 1978-05-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint and refusing to consider an amended complaint, as subject matter jurisdiction exists and the plaintiff has standing.
• Smith v. The State OF Cal.
  336 F.2d 530· 9th Cir.· 1964-09-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the complaint did not present a substantial federal question, and therefore, the district court correctly dismissed the action.
• Mainelli v. Providence Journal Co.
  312 F.2d 3· 1st Cir.· 1962-12-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims did not establish federal jurisdiction, as the editorial did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 1503 and the jurisdictional claim was insubstantial.
• Robinson v. Winburn
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-07
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because his allegations did not establish a constitutional deprivation, lacked required elements for specific claims, and sought relief not available in a civil rights action.
• Quarles v. Colo. Sec. Agency, Inc.
  843 F.2d 557· D.C. Cir.· 1988-04-08
  The court held that the employee's claim did not arise under federal law, thus the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
• City OF Independence v. Bond
  756 F.2d 615· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-26
  Federal question jurisdiction exists when a case requires the interpretation of a federal statute, even if a contract contemplated by the statute is involved.
• Boyster v. Roden
  628 F.2d 1121· 8th Cir.· 1980-09-02
  The court held that the fiduciary duties of officers of federally chartered production credit associations are not governed by federal common law, and thus the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
• Blomberg v. Schneiderheinz
  632 F.2d 698· 8th Cir.· 1980-08-29
  The court held that dismissal without prejudice was not an error, allowing plaintiffs to replead if they can establish the "color of law" element.
• Pratt v. Kelly
  585 F.2d 692· 4th Cir.· 1978-10-20
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Virginia retained civil jurisdiction over the Blue Ridge Parkway, meaning the state's wrongful death statute did not become a law of the United States.
• Bayou Auguste Tenants Org. v. Romney
  506 F.2d 713· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-17
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish their right to maintain the litigation as a class action, thus affirming the dismissal for want of jurisdiction.