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

• Pac. Trading Co. v. Wilson & Co., Inc.
  547 F.2d 367· 7th Cir.· 1976-11-22 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the cited federal statutes do not create a private right of action for monetary damages, and therefore, the dismissal of claims based on these statutes was proper.
• Stokes v. Adair
  265 F.2d 662· 4th Cir.· 1959-04-08 ·cited 7×
  The United States District Court has jurisdiction over a civil action for injuries occurring on a federal military reservation, as state laws in effect at the time of cession become federal law governing private rights.
• Application of Baer
  169 F.2d 770· 3d Cir.· 1948-08-16 ·cited 7×·via Federal Question
  The court held that petitioners failed to exhaust their state remedies by not seeking certiorari from the Supreme Court after the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals addressed the merits of their federal constitutional claims.
• Aquafaith Shipping, Ltd. v. Eufemia R. Jarillas
  963 F.2d 806· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a claim is not removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c) if it is not within federal question jurisdiction, even if it is separate and independent from a non-removable claim. The court also held that a declaratory judgment action should be dismissed when the entire
• Valenti v. Mitchell
  962 F.2d 288· 3d Cir.· 1992-04-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar the district court from hearing constitutional claims by parties who were not participants in the prior state supreme court proceedings, even if those proceedings addressed similar issues.
• United States v. Cyril Plainbull
  957 F.2d 724· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by abstaining from exercising jurisdiction, as comity and the federal policy favoring tribal self-government supported deferring to tribal courts for resolution of disputes involving tribal land.
• Cont'l Cablevision OF ST. Paul, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv.
  945 F.2d 1434· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that 39 U.S.C. § 409(a) provides an independent ground for removal of actions involving the Postal Service and grants federal district courts subject-matter jurisdiction over such cases. The existence of a substantive cause of action is a merits issue, not a jurisd
• Downtown Med. Center/Comprehensive Health Care Clinic v. Bowen
  944 F.2d 756· 10th Cir.· 1991-09-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to review CHC's claim because it challenged the validity of the Medicare Carrier's Manual's criteria, not merely the amount of a specific claim determination.
• Livingston Care Ctr. v. United States
  934 F.2d 719· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-31 ·cited 6×
  Claims for consequential damages arising from wrongful termination of a Medicare provider agreement are precluded by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) as incorporated by 42 U.S.C. § 1395cc(h)(1), and this preclusion does not violate due process.
• Hamilton Stores, Inc. v. Hodel
  925 F.2d 1272· 10th Cir.· 1991-02-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that summary judgment for the government was appropriate because the services awarded to TWS were not 'new or additional' and thus did not trigger HSI's preferential right.
• Boyle v. The Governor's Veterans Outreach & Assistance Ctr.
  925 F.2d 71· 3d Cir.· 1991-01-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the dismissal of an employee by a federally funded organization was not state action, and therefore not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because the organization's relationship with the state was too tenuous.
• Duran v. Garrey Carruthers
  885 F.2d 1485· 10th Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motion to vacate parts of the consent decree, affirming the lower court's decision.
• Thorstenn v. Barnard
  883 F.2d 217· 3d Cir.· 1989-08-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for services rendered in the district court, court of appeals, and Supreme Court, but fees against the Virgin Islands Bar Association are denied.
• Sanders v. Robinson
  864 F.2d 630· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-30 ·cited 6×
  The tribal court has jurisdiction over a non-Indian defendant in a divorce and custody proceeding when the couple resided on the reservation during the marriage, and federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the limits of tribal court jurisdiction.
• ANR Pipeline Co. v. The Corp. Comm'n OF the State OF Okla.
  860 F.2d 1571· 10th Cir.· 1988-11-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Oklahoma's ratable take statute and implementing regulation are preempted by federal law, and the district court properly exercised jurisdiction.
• J. Filiberto Sanitation, Inc. v. State OF NEW Jersey Dep't OF Env't Prot. & Bd. of Pub. Utils.
  857 F.2d 913· 3d Cir.· 1988-09-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the New Jersey regulation requiring solid waste collected in Hunterdon County to be deposited at the county's transfer station does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause.
• Marozsan v. The United States & the Veterans' Admin.
  852 F.2d 1469· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-25 ·cited 6×
  The court should vacate the judgment and dismiss the complaint due to lack of jurisdiction over the damages claim.
• Trentacosta v. Frontier Pac. Aircraft Indus., Inc.
  813 F.2d 1553· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the Jones Act claims against defendants other than Aero Dinámico for lack of an employer relationship, but erred in denying leave to amend the complaint to allege admiralty jurisdiction for other claims.
• Ben-Shalom v. Secretary OF the Army
  807 F.2d 982· Fed. Cir.· 1986-12-18 ·cited 6×
  This court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's jurisdiction was based on statutes granting equitable relief (mandamus), not the Tucker Act, which applies to claims for money damages.
• Truckee-Carson Irrigation Dist. v. Sec'y OF Dep't OF Interior
  742 F.2d 527· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that TCID's claim of a property right in water was unfounded, and the Secretary properly terminated its contract for violating operating criteria, without violating due process.
• Gonsalves v. Amoco Shipping Co.
  733 F.2d 1020· 2d Cir.· 1984-05-01 ·cited 6×
  A maintenance and cure claim is not sufficiently separate and independent from a Jones Act claim arising from the same operative facts to permit removal of the entire action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).
• Allison v. Liberty Savings
  695 F.2d 1086· 7th Cir.· 1982-12-27 ·cited 6×
  The court should rehear en banc a case concerning whether a private damage action can be implied under section 10 of RESPA for mortgage escrow overcharges.
• Johnston v. Citizens Bank & Tr. Co. OF Flippin
  659 F.2d 865· 8th Cir.· 1981-09-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a loan guaranty fee, charged and later refunded to the borrower, did not constitute usurious interest under Arkansas law because it was intended for reimbursement to a third party (SBA) and not as profit for the lender. The court also found no grounds for recu
• Shelton v. United States Customs Serv. & Russell D. Wrenn
  565 F.2d 1140· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-13 ·cited 6×
  Federal agencies cannot be sued in their own name without explicit Congressional authorization, and law enforcement agents are protected by qualified immunity if their actions were appropriate and taken in good faith.
• Morris v. Danna
  547 F.2d 436· 8th Cir.· 1977-01-13 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the invasion of privacy claim did not rise to constitutional dimensions and lacked federal question jurisdiction.
• Mathis v. Opportunities Industrialization Ctrs., Inc.
  545 F.2d 97· 9th Cir.· 1976-11-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the relationship between the Federal Government and O.I.C. was substantial enough to consider O.I.C.'s actions as governmental actions subject to Fifth Amendment due process requirements.
• Friedlander v. Joseph Cimino, M.D.
  520 F.2d 318· 2d Cir.· 1975-07-09 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged purposeful discrimination to establish a substantial federal question, thus reversing the dismissal.
• Moore v. Betit
  511 F.2d 1004· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the lower court erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction based on speculative damages, and that the case should be remanded for further consideration of the amount in controversy, particularly regarding the 'trust fund' theory.
• Moffitt v. Major Fred R. Ross & State of N.C.
  483 F.2d 650· 4th Cir.· 1973-08-29 ·cited 6×·via Federal Question
  An indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of assigned counsel in seeking discretionary review in a state's highest court and in seeking a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
• Mrs. Concha Lopez v. Luginbill
  483 F.2d 486· 10th Cir.· 1973-08-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the appellees failed to establish a cause of action under the Civil Rights Act or demonstrate the required jurisdictional amount, and no implied civil remedy exists for PAC members under Title I.
• Gibson v. Jeffers
  478 F.2d 216· 10th Cir.· 1973-05-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege facts to establish the jurisdictional amount required for federal court jurisdiction, even after multiple amendments.
• Mountain Fuel Supply Co. v. Emory C. Smith and Verland E. Smith
  471 F.2d 594· 10th Cir.· 1973-01-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while surface owners can object to mineral lessees using their land for operations on other tracts, the defendants' surface lands, held in common ownership, constitute a single tract for this purpose. The court also held that the trial court had jurisdiction.
• City OF Boston v. Mass. Port Auth.
  444 F.2d 167· 1st Cir.· 1971-06-21 ·cited 6×
  A mere violation of state law by a state official does not, by itself, constitute a violation of the federal Constitution's due process clause.
• Adelt v. Richmond Sch. Dist.
  439 F.2d 718· 9th Cir.· 1971-03-09 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  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.
• Runette Turner v. Thompson
  421 F.2d 771· 5th Cir.· 1970-02-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a denial of procedural due process when her beer license was rescinded pending a public hearing.
• Hill v. Beto
  412 F.2d 831· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-10 ·cited 6×·via Federal Question
  The court held that the state trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine the petitioner regarding the truth or falsity of his confession when determining its admissibility.
• Poole v. Cletus J. Fitzharris
  396 F.2d 544· 9th Cir.· 1968-06-12 ·cited 6×·via Federal Question
  The court held that a defense attorney can waive certain Sixth Amendment rights, like confrontation, as a matter of trial strategy, absent exceptional circumstances.
• Union Bankers Ins. Co. v. United States
  317 F.2d 598· 5th Cir.· 1963-05-22 ·cited 6×·via Federal Question
  A statutory merger where stock is issued directly to the absorbed company's stockholders is not subject to the stock transfer tax if state law prohibits the absorbed company from receiving such stock.
• Seward v. Heinze
  262 F.2d 42· 9th Cir.· 1958-12-12 ·cited 6×·via Federal Question
  The court held that the petitioner's claims do not present a federal question and are based on state law issues that cannot be reviewed by this court.
• Duplisea v. Maine Central Railroad
  260 F.2d 495· 1st Cir.· 1958-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction because the Railway Labor Act vests exclusive jurisdiction for wrongful discharge claims in the National Railroad Adjustment Board, not the courts.
• Devandlis Wiggins v. Ragen
  238 F.2d 309· 7th Cir.· 1956-10-25 ·cited 6×·via Federal Question
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, reaffirming that while federal courts generally defer to state court decisions on constitutional rights, they must hold a hearing if the averments present unusual circumstances.
• Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc. v. Angus H. Taylor
  227 F.2d 162· 8th Cir.· 1955-11-15 ·cited 6×
  A single-judge district court cannot dismiss a case requiring a three-judge panel over plaintiff's objection, and may abstain from deciding federal constitutional issues if a state law question remains unresolved.
• Ekberg v. McGEE
  191 F.2d 625· 9th Cir.· 1951-08-31 ·cited 6×·via Federal Question
• State of Ga. v. Wenger
  187 F.2d 285· 7th Cir.· 1951-02-23 ·cited 6×
  A state cannot create a federal cause of action for damages based on the Twenty-first Amendment or the Webb-Kenyon Act when the underlying claim is for the collection of state taxes.
• E. Coast Lumber Terminal, Inc. v. Town of Babylon
  174 F.2d 106· 2d Cir.· 1949-04-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in abstaining from deciding the federal constitutional questions until state courts had an opportunity to interpret the ordinance and state law.
• United States ex rel. Crist v. Ragen
  157 F.2d 621· 7th Cir.· 1946-10-29 ·cited 6×·via Federal Question
  The court held that the issue of whether extradition waived the state's right to reincarcerate a parole violator is a non-federal question governed by state law.
• Dawsett v. Benson
  156 F.2d 669· 6th Cir.· 1946-08-05 ·cited 6×·via Federal Question
  A federal district court correctly denied a habeas corpus petition when the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by not seeking review from the United States Supreme Court after the highest state court adjudicated the merits of the petition.
• Grills v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
  645 F. Supp. 2d 1107· M.D. Fla.· 2009-08-04 ·cited 5×
  The court held that while some claims might be preempted, the plaintiff's fraud and fraudulent concealment claims, based on a duty not to deceive, are not preempted by federal law and may proceed if properly pleaded. The court also found the plaintiff failed to properly allege di
• ABC Charters, Inc. v. Bronson
  591 F. Supp. 2d 1272· S.D. Fla.· 2008-10-01 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Florida Sellers of Travel Act Amendments likely violate the Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause, and denied the motion to dismiss.
• Smartt v. First Union Nat'l Bank
  245 F. Supp. 2d 1229· M.D. Fla.· 2003-01-29 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granted the defendants' motion for attorney's fees and costs due to vexatious litigation.