"Arising Under" Jurisdiction

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

• Coastal States Mktg., Inc. v. NEW England Petroleum Corp.
  604 F.2d 179· 2d Cir.· 1979-08-01 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals (TECA) has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals where an "ESA issue" has been adjudicated by the district court, even if the underlying claim did not arise under the ESA.
• James K.T. Hunter and Gina F. Brandt v. United van Lines
  746 F.2d 635· 9th Cir.· 1984-11-05 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the 'well-pleaded complaint' rule precludes removal of state law claims asserted to be preempted by federal law.
• The Oneida Indian Nation OF NEW York State v. The Cnty. OF Oneida
  464 F.2d 916· 2d Cir.· 1972-07-12 ·cited 22×
  The court should interpret "arising under" jurisdiction broadly for Indian tribes under 28 U.S.C. § 1362, allowing federal court adjudication of treaty-based claims.
• Gila River Indian Community v. Henningson
  626 F.2d 708· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-29 ·cited 19×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1362 does not extend to a simple breach of contract action for negligent design and construction, as it does not involve the tribe's possessory rights to land or other federal questions.
• 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
• Milan Express Co., Inc. v. W. Sur. Co.
  886 F.2d 783· 6th Cir.· 1989-09-22 ·cited 12×
  A suit on a surety bond required by federal statute for interstate commerce brokers does not arise under federal law for jurisdictional purposes, absent clear congressional intent to create a federal cause of action.
• Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc. v. McImetro Access Transmission Servs., Inc.
  317 F.3d 1270· 11th Cir.· 2003-01-10 ·cited 8×
  The Eleventh Circuit, in a dissenting opinion, argued that federal district courts lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(6) to review the Georgia Public Service Commission's (GPSC) order regarding reciprocal compensation for ISP-bound calls. The dissen
• Bell & Beckwith v. United States
  766 F.2d 910· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction was lacking because the central dispute, the ownership of the investment account, was a matter of state law, even though it was relevant to a federal tax lien.
• Enders v. Am. Patent Search Co.
  535 F.2d 1085· 9th Cir.· 1976-02-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that 35 U.S.C. § 33 is not an Act of Congress 'relating to patents' for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1338 jurisdiction. Therefore, federal jurisdiction for claims implied from § 33 requires meeting the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
• Simpson v. S. W. R.R. Co. & Cent. of Ga. Ry. Co.
  231 F.2d 59· 5th Cir.· 1956-03-20 ·cited 6×
  A suit seeking to enjoin conduct authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission is removable to federal court as arising under federal law, even if it does not directly seek to annul the ICC order.
• 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.
• Kiick v. Metro. Edison Co.
  784 F.2d 490· 3d Cir.· 1986-02-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that subject matter jurisdiction under the Price-Anderson Act's grant for extraordinary nuclear occurrences requires a prior determination by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and that claims do not "arise under" the Act for federal jurisdiction purposes if