Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1)

520 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 195 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• The State OF Tex. v. W. Publ'g Co.
  882 F.2d 171· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-05
  The court held that the State of Texas failed to establish an actual controversy, thus the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear its declaratory judgment action regarding West Publishing Company's copyright.
• Goldman v. Gallant Sec., Inc.
  878 F.2d 71· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-22
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the complaint alleged federal securities law violations.
• Ezell v. Bowen
  849 F.2d 844· 4th Cir.· 1988-05-09
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the appellant failed to raise a colorable statutory or constitutional claim.
• Edmund G. and Kaatje R. Redman v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  820 F.2d 209· 6th Cir.· 1987-06-05
  The Tax Court may resolve factual disputes at a hearing on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and extrinsic evidence cannot be used to prove the mailing date of a lost certified mail receipt.
• Neurological Assocs. v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Fla., Inc.
  632 F. Supp. 1078· S.D. Fla.· 1986-04-29
  The court held that the action was improperly removed because the state court lacked jurisdiction over claims arising under the Medicare Act, and thus, under the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction, the federal court also lacked jurisdiction.
• Valdes v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co.
  507 F. Supp. 10· S.D. Fla.· 1980-10-02
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint alleged sufficient facts to withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, as it could be construed as "sex plus" discrimination under Title VII.
• Provost v. Huber
  594 F.2d 717· 8th Cir.· 1979-03-23 ·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
  The court held that a house being transported over frozen water, which subsequently broke through the ice and submerged, does not constitute a maritime activity or a vessel, thus lacking the necessary nexus for federal admiralty jurisdiction in a salvage claim.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Nash-Finch Co.
  288 F.2d 407· D.C. Cir.· 1961-02-15
  The court held that the District Court had jurisdiction to grant a declaratory judgment regarding the applicability of Public Law 86-107 to an outstanding FTC order.