Federal Question Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331)

880 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 130 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Sarasota v. Env't Prot. Agency
  799 F.2d 674· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a federal grant applicant challenging the denial of grant funds under the Clean Water Act can pursue their claims in District Court, not exclusively in the Claims Court, as the primary relief sought is not a direct money judgment.
• Willis v. United States
  787 F.2d 1089· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-31 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the claimant was adequately notified of forfeiture procedures and waived his right to contest the seizure by failing to pursue judicial forfeiture.
• Warren v. Local 1759
  764 F.2d 1395· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-05 ·cited 10×
  Federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over a federal employee's duty of fair representation claim against their union, as Congress intended the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to have exclusive jurisdiction over such matters under the Civil Service Reform Act (
• Green v. Heckler
  742 F.2d 237· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that decisions regarding emergency advance payments under the Supplemental Security Income program are not subject to judicial review, as they are committed to the Secretary's discretion and precluded by statute and regulation.
• Tierney v. Schweiker
  718 F.2d 449· D.C. Cir.· 1983-09-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Social Security Administration's notice-and-consent form did not meet the requirements of Internal Revenue Code subsection 6103(c) for disclosing confidential tax information, as it was coercive and lacked specificity.
• Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Comm'n OF the Supreme Court OF Ill. v. Schweiker
  715 F.2d 282· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-11 ·cited 10×
  The Seventh Circuit held that the Disciplinary Commission, as an entity that paid social security taxes and has a direct interest in its employees' coverage, can sue under section 205(g) of the Social Security Act for a determination of coverage, even though it is not an 'individ
• Leola M. Broadnax v. United States Army
  710 F.2d 865· D.C. Cir.· 1983-06-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because neither the Federal Tort Claims Act nor the Military Claims Act provided a basis for jurisdiction, and general federal question jurisdiction was precluded.
• Smith v. Schweiker
  709 F.2d 777· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claim because they have not exhausted their administrative remedies as required by the Social Security Act.
• Armstrong v. Elayne A. Armstrong
  696 F.2d 1237· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate a state court divorce decree based on a subsequent change in federal law, as the federal question was merely an anticipated defense.
• Lechtner v. Brownyard
  679 F.2d 322· 3d Cir.· 1982-06-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the FCC Personal Attack Rule does not create an implied private cause of action for damages, and therefore, the federal claim fails.
• Commonwealth OF Va. v. Marshall
  599 F.2d 588· 4th Cir.· 1979-05-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Secretary of Labor's classification of median work as 'heavy' construction for wage determination purposes was reasonable and within his authority, and that the controversy was not moot.
• Am. Invs-Co Countryside, Inc. v. Riverdale Bank
  596 F.2d 211· 7th Cir.· 1979-03-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a dispute between private parties concerning the interpretation of an FHA regulatory agreement, where the FHA's interest is not directly contested, does not arise under federal law for subject matter jurisdiction purposes.
• Vill. Harbor, Inc. v. The United States
  559 F.2d 247· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court properly treated the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment and that no federally protected rights were violated.
• Robert Hoffman and wife v. United States Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  519 F.2d 1160· 5th Cir.· 1975-09-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a three-judge court was not required and that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• 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.
• Miller v. Beda Bauer
  517 F.2d 27· 7th Cir.· 1975-06-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the federal Tax Injunction Act barred the suit because Indiana provided a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy, and the plaintiffs were not instrumentalities of the federal government immune from state taxation.
• 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.
• Michel T. Blouin v. Loyola Univ. & Fr. Bernard Tonnor
  506 F.2d 20· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the private university's actions did not constitute state action, and therefore the federal court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
• Bosely v. City OF Euclid
  496 F.2d 193· 6th Cir.· 1974-05-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the tenants were not denied due process and that the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the City.
• Campbell v. Masur
  486 F.2d 554· 5th Cir.· 1973-10-29 ·cited 10×
  The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of a new Supreme Court decision regarding jurisdiction.
• Garfinkle v. Wells Fargo Bank
  483 F.2d 1074· 9th Cir.· 1973-08-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 and a substantial federal question is presented, but the court should abstain from deciding the case pending resolution of unsettled state law issues in state
• Rincon Band OF Mission Indians v. Escondido Mut. Water Co.
  459 F.2d 1082· 9th Cir.· 1972-04-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Attorney General is not required to provide legal representation or security to the plaintiffs due to a conflict of interest, and the appealability of the order is proper under the collateral order doctrine.
• Garren v. City of Winston-Salem
  439 F.2d 140· 4th Cir.· 1971-03-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a claim based solely on the deprivation of property rights, even if framed as an equal protection issue related to extraterritorial zoning without voting rights, is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• City OF Miami v. Woolin
  387 F.2d 893· 5th Cir.· 1968-01-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the zoning ordinance's distance restrictions, as applied to appellees' property, were unconstitutional.
• Lincoln Bank & Tr. Co. v. Exch. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co.
  383 F.2d 694· 10th Cir.· 1967-09-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Exchange Bank's proposed branch facility complied with the Oklahoma statute regarding distance and permitted functions, and that the district court correctly declined to review the Comptroller's approval.
• Cocheyse J. Griffin v. Cnty. Sch. Bd. OF Prince Edward Cnty.
  363 F.2d 206· 4th Cir.· 1966-06-20 ·cited 10×·via Federal Question
  A party commits civil contempt by placing the subject matter of pending litigation beyond the court's control with intent to frustrate an anticipated adverse decree, even without a direct injunction or order, when the conduct resists the court's appellate process and impairs the
• Merge v. Sharott
  341 F.2d 989· 3d Cir.· 1965-02-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that displaced businesses have no right of action against the federal Administrator for relocation payments, but may have a right of action against the local agency, and a prior state court judgment on the issue bars collateral attack.
• Int'l Harvester Co. v. The City of Kan. City
  308 F.2d 35· 10th Cir.· 1962-08-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that private property owners lack standing under Kansas law to challenge a municipal annexation ordinance, and that the refusal of state officials to bring such an action does not violate federal due process.
• Erwin P. Werner v. Hearst Publ'g Co., Inc.
  297 F.2d 145· 9th Cir.· 1961-12-04 ·cited 10×·via Federal Question
  The court held that the publication of a news story concerning a former public figure's past activities, even if containing some inaccuracies, does not constitute an invasion of privacy if it is of newsworthy nature and the state's libel statute provides protection for such publi
• United States ex rel. Willie Lowery v. Murphy
  245 F.2d 751· 2d Cir.· 1957-06-26 ·cited 10×·via Federal Question
  The court denied the petition for a certificate of probable cause, appointment of counsel, and leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
• Beal v. Holcombe
  193 F.2d 384· 5th Cir.· 1951-12-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that denying negro citizens the use of municipal golf courses, while allowing white citizens to use them, constitutes forbidden discrimination, even if other park facilities are substantially equal.
• Coggins v. O'Brien
  188 F.2d 130· 1st Cir.· 1951-03-15 ·cited 10×·via Federal Question
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the state courts afforded the petitioner a constitutionally adequate opportunity to prove his claims.
• Lansden v. Hart
  180 F.2d 679· 7th Cir.· 1950-02-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while plaintiffs may have alleged sufficient facts to establish federal question jurisdiction regarding the value of their business rights, the hunting ban was a valid exercise of administrative discretion under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and thus they fai
• Ky. Laborers Dist. Council Health & Welf. Fund v. Hope
  861 F.2d 1003· 6th Cir.· 1988-11-25 ·cited 9×
  The court held that even if jurisdiction was lacking under ERISA's specific enforcement provision, the district court had federal question jurisdiction because the state law claims were preempted by ERISA.
• Superior OIL Co. v. The United States
  798 F.2d 1324· 10th Cir.· 1986-08-13 ·cited 9×
  The court held that federal district courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review tribal court decisions concerning jurisdiction, but require exhaustion of tribal remedies first, unless bad faith or futility is shown.
• Nat'l Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe OF Indians
  736 F.2d 1320· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-03 ·cited 9×
  A federal court cannot entertain a civil suit seeking to enjoin a tribal court's exercise of jurisdiction, as federal law limits such review to habeas corpus.
• ST. Louis Union Tr. Co. v. Stone
  570 F.2d 833· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-21 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the District Court had federal question jurisdiction over the interpleader action concerning federal tax liens, but properly dismissed Stone's breach of contract claim exceeding the Tucker Act's jurisdictional limit.
• United States & Mortimer Todel v. Franklin Nat'l Bank
  512 F.2d 245· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-24 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York lacked jurisdiction over the action because the receiver, appointed in the Southern District, could not sue in another district without an independent jurisdictional basis, and the United St
• Wilson v. Hearos, LLC
  128 F.4th 1254· 11th Cir.· 2025-02-18 ·cited 8×
  Removal by a non-party is a waivable procedural defect, not a jurisdictional one, and the court must apply state law regarding statutes of limitations and service of process after removal in a diversity case.
• Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Access Telecom, Inc.
  642 F. Supp. 2d 1354· S.D. Fla.· 2009-07-24 ·cited 8×
  The court denied all motions to dismiss and strike, finding that the plaintiff adequately pleaded its claims and that subject matter jurisdiction was proper.
• Abbey v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  978 F.2d 37· 2d Cir.· 1992-09-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the 1986 Amendments to the Medicare Act now channel Part B disputes through the Social Security Act's administrative and judicial review process, precluding federal question jurisdiction and requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies.
• Ceres Gulf and Esis/INA v. Cleaster Cooper
  957 F.2d 1199· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the employer's action to recover advance payments under the LHWCA, and that the Director should have been permitted to intervene.
• Burda v. M. Ecker Co.
  954 F.2d 434· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the worker's claim challenging federal tax withholding was properly removed to federal court and dismissed for failure to state a claim, but remanded the issue of sanctions for reconsideration.
• W. Sec. Co. v. Derwinski
  937 F.2d 1276· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Veterans' Administration's missed deadline for notifying Western to preserve personal liability did not invalidate the loan guaranty because Western suffered no harm from the delay.
• Feltman v. Prudential Bache Securities
  122 B.R. 466· S.D. Fla.· 1990-12-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that neither the bankruptcy trustee nor the creditors' committee has standing to bring claims that belong to specific creditors of the estate, particularly when the alleged injuries to the debtor corporations are illusory or derivative of the creditors' injuries.
• Native Vill. OF Venetie I.R.A. Council v. State OF Alaska
  918 F.2d 797· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal law requires Alaska to accord full faith and credit to child-custody determinations made by the tribal courts of native villages, and that these villages can invoke federal jurisdiction under the Indian Child Welfare Act.
• In re the Complaint of Three Buoys Houseboat Vacations U.S.A., Ltd. v. Morts
  878 F.2d 1096· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Limitation of Liability Act does not provide an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction and its territorial application is limited to navigable waters for admiralty purposes.
• Port Drum Co. v. Umphrey
  852 F.2d 148· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-16 ·cited 8×
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 does not grant federal courts subject matter jurisdiction for private causes of action to enforce its provisions, nor does the Declaratory Judgment Act provide such jurisdiction.
• Nat'l Ass'n of Cntys. v. Baker
  842 F.2d 369· D.C. Cir.· 1988-03-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction but erred in ordering the disbursement of sequestered Revenue Sharing Trust Funds, as the Revenue Sharing Act is not a compensation-mandating statute and the funds were permanently cancelled as FY 1986 budgetary resources.
• Plaquemines Port v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n & United States
  838 F.2d 536· D.C. Cir.· 1988-02-02 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the FMC's order, holding that the Port's actions constituted furnishing terminal facilities, thus establishing FMC jurisdiction, and that the tariff did not violate the tonnage clause.