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

• Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Murrey & Son's Co. Inc.
  824 F.2d 740· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Shipping Act of 1916 provides carriers with an implied private cause of action to collect freight charges imposed by a tariff, and that the bill of lading contractually obligated the shipper for attorneys' fees incurred in collection.
• 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.
• Eubanks v. O.L. McCOTTER
  802 F.2d 790· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the inmates' federal claims were not immaterial or frivolous, thus the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Tenn. Dep't OF Emp. Sec. v. Secretary OF Labor
  801 F.2d 170· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) commits judicial review of the Secretary's decision to deny further CETA/JTPA funds to the courts of appeals, not the district court.
• Richendollar v. Diamond M Drilling Co., Inc.
  784 F.2d 580· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove a cause of action under § 905(b) against the employer for negligence, as the negligence was that of a fellow employee and not imputable to the vessel owner as a separate entity.
• Am. Television & Commc'ns Corp. v. Floken, Ltd.
  629 F. Supp. 1462· M.D. Fla.· 1986-02-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a cable television distributor has standing under 47 U.S.C. § 605 to sue hotels that intercept and retransmit subscription programming signals intended for the distributor, as this constitutes an injury redressable by the court.
• Hatcher v. Heckler
  772 F.2d 427· 8th Cir.· 1985-09-04 ·cited 8×
  The federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims challenging Part B Medicare benefit determinations, even if framed as due process violations, due to statutory preclusion under 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).
• 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.
• Mich. Acad. OF Fam. Physicians v. Blue Cross AND Blue Shield OF Michigan and Richard S. Schweiker
  757 F.2d 91· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler v. Ringer did not preclude judicial review for Medicare providers challenging a regulation, reaffirming its prior decision that federal question jurisdiction exists.
• Michels v. United States Olympic Comm.
  741 F.2d 155· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Amateur Sports Act does not provide for private enforcement and the USOC's duty to resolve disputes is limited to those involving its members.
• Hart v. Pulte Homes OF Mich. Corp.
  735 F.2d 1001· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the sale and lease-back of model homes did not constitute investment contracts under federal securities laws because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate investment in a common enterprise.
• Duane v. Haas
  725 F.2d 71· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-12 ·cited 8×
  A corporation violates SEC Rule 14a-7 if it makes a shareholder's proxy materials false by changing the meeting date to frustrate the shareholder's mailing, and the shareholder can recover damages.
• United States v. Perry
  706 F.2d 278· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 8×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the Perrys' counterclaims were barred by sovereign immunity and affirmed the district court's dismissal.
• Mercer v. Birchman
  700 F.2d 828· 2d Cir.· 1983-02-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that their claims did not warrant mandamus jurisdiction because the administrative process ultimately corrected the alleged procedural errors.
• Wood v. Sargeant
  694 F.2d 1159· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-17 ·cited 8×
  A taxpayer's inability to pay a state tax does not render the state's 'pay and sue' refund remedy inefficient, thus the federal Tax Injunction Act bars federal court jurisdiction.
• Schulthess v. United States
  694 F.2d 175· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-06 ·cited 8×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction over the appellant's claim for back pay exceeding $10,000, and the dependent annuity adjustment claim, requiring reversal of the dismissal and transfer to the Claims Court.
• Herzog v. Secretary OF Health
  686 F.2d 1154· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-09 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the action, holding that the constitutional claims raised by the appellants were too insubstantial to establish federal question jurisdiction.
• Theriault v. The Honorable Joseph E. Brennan
  641 F.2d 28· 1st Cir.· 1981-02-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state did not violate the federal program's maintenance of effort requirement by not implementing a supplemental heating assistance program when federal funding increased sufficiently to cover the need.
• United States & United States ex rel. Sec'y v. Hon. Milbern J. Adams
  634 F.2d 1261· 10th Cir.· 1980-11-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a claim for contract damages exceeding $10,000 against the United States, even if involving HUD, falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, thus the federal district court properly enjoined state court proceedings.
• FRY Bros. Corp. v. The Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  614 F.2d 732· 10th Cir.· 1980-02-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a justiciable claim and that the Administrative Procedure Act does not create an independent basis for jurisdiction.
• 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.
• Local 2047 v. Def. Gen. Supply Ctr.
  573 F.2d 184· 4th Cir.· 1978-03-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the employer's refusal to disclose employee personnel data was justified by the Privacy Act and its regulations, as the requested information was not a 'routine use' without employee consent.
• State OF NEW Mexico ex rel. S. E. Reynolds v. Molybdenum Corp. OF Am.
  570 F.2d 1364· 10th Cir.· 1978-02-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the State Engineer's conditions on water use, including acreage limitations, were binding on Molycorp because they were pertinent to preventing impairment of existing rights and Molycorp failed to appeal or properly challenge them.
• Donohoe Constr. Co., Inc. v. Montgomery Cnty. Council & Montgomery Cnty.
  567 F.2d 603· 4th Cir.· 1977-12-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the facts found by the district court were insufficient to support a finding of a de facto taking of private property without just compensation.
• Carothers v. W. Transp. Co.
  554 F.2d 799· 7th Cir.· 1977-04-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' action to recover surcharge revenue was not barred by the statute of limitations for 'orders for the payment of money' and was properly brought under a provision for enforcing ICC orders other than for payment of money, and that the grievance p
• Planning Research Corp. v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  555 F.2d 970· D.C. Cir.· 1977-03-10 ·cited 8×
  The District Court had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to entertain a supplier's suit to prevent an agency from disclosing contract information under FOIA.
• Black v. Beame
  550 F.2d 815· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that general statements of goals in federal welfare statutes do not create a private cause of action for individual recipients to challenge the cost-effectiveness of state welfare policies.
• COX v. N. Va. Transp. Comm'n
  551 F.2d 555· 4th Cir.· 1976-11-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that discharging a public employee based on public accusations of dishonesty or immorality without providing a name-clearing hearing violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Camenisch v. United States
  553 F.2d 1271· D.C. Cir.· 1976-10-07 ·cited 8×
• McDANIEL v. The Univ. OF Chicago & Argonne
  512 F.2d 583· 7th Cir.· 1975-03-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Davis-Bacon Act, when read in conjunction with the Miller Act and its legislative history, does not confer a private right of action against a contractor for wage underpayments when no payment bond was furnished and no funds were withheld by the government
• Carter v. Duggan
  455 F.2d 1156· 5th Cir.· 1972-02-29 ·cited 8×
  State judges are immune from suit for damages for judicial actions, and a federal court should not compel state judges to act without prior exhaustion of state remedies.
• Richardson v. The State OF Tex.
  425 F.2d 1372· 5th Cir.· 1970-05-12 ·cited 8×·via Federal Question
  The court held that the federal habeas court correctly denied an evidentiary hearing because the state court had already provided a full and fair hearing on the claims.
• Ragoni v. United States
  424 F.2d 261· 3d Cir.· 1970-04-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant a declaratory judgment or review the Correction Board's decision, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate arbitrary or capricious action within the administrative record and did not meet jurisdictional requirement
• Euge v. Trantina
  422 F.2d 1070· 8th Cir.· 1970-03-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction.
• Eggerson Fountain v. NEW Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc.
  387 F.2d 343· 5th Cir.· 1967-12-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of federal jurisdiction because the wrongful death action did not arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States.
• 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.
• Marine Cooks & Stewards v. Panama S.S. Co., Ltd.
  265 F.2d 780· 9th Cir.· 1959-04-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the exception to federal question jurisdiction for maritime claims does not apply when the relief sought, like an injunction against a maritime tort, is unknown to admiralty courts.
• United States ex rel. Gerard Dennis v. Murphy
  265 F.2d 57· 2d Cir.· 1959-04-02 ·cited 8×·via Federal Question
  The court held that the district court should have further examined the relator's claims of denial of due process regarding the use of Canadian convictions for sentence enhancement.
• United States ex rel. Johnson v. Ragen
  171 F.2d 630· 7th Cir.· 1948-12-31 ·cited 8×·via Federal Question
  The court held that the petitioner's claim of a misidentified prior conviction in the indictment does not render the judgment void, as the trial court had jurisdiction.
• Foley v. Asima Azam
  257 So. 3d 1134· Fla. 5th DCA· 2018-10-19 ·cited 7×
  Section 1367(d) tolls the statute of limitations for state law claims dismissed from federal court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, regardless of whether the federal claims were frivolous or lacked plausible foundation. The plain text of the statute does not condition tol
• Grinberg v. Swacina
  478 F. Supp. 2d 1350· S.D. Fla.· 2007-03-20 ·cited 7×
  The court held that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to compel adjudication of immigration status adjustment applications due to statutory preclusion of review for discretionary agency actions, including the pace of processing.
• Scherer v. Laborers'intern. Union of N. Am.
  746 F. Supp. 73· N.D. Fla.· 1988-12-19 ·cited 7×
  The court held that it has federal question jurisdiction over claims arising from the interpretation of contracts between labor organizations, even if the plaintiff is not a party to those contracts. However, a direct contract claim between an individual and a union is a state la
• United States v. Yakima Tribal Court of the Yakima Indian Nation & David Ward
  794 F.2d 1402· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-21 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the tribal court's order was void due to the United States' sovereign immunity and that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin its enforcement.
• Berrios v. Agosto
  716 F.2d 85· 1st Cir.· 1983-09-07 ·cited 7×
  The court held that legislative activities enjoined were protected by common law legislative immunity and no exception applied, thus reversing the district court's order.
• Goodface v. Garfield Grassrope
  708 F.2d 335· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-31 ·cited 7×
  The court held that while the district court had jurisdiction to review the BIA's arbitrary action in refusing to recognize a tribal council, it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the underlying intratribal election dispute.
• 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.
• The Hearth, Inc. v. Dep't OF Pub. Welf.
  617 F.2d 381· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-06 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, affirming the district court's dismissal.
• City OF Palo Alto v. City & Cnty. OF SAN Francisco
  548 F.2d 1374· 9th Cir.· 1977-02-24 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court had federal question jurisdiction and that the Bay Cities have standing to challenge discriminatory water rates under the Raker Act, affirming the injunction on rate increases. However, the claim regarding the transfer of surplus funds was r