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

• Boarhead Corp. v. Erickson
  923 F.2d 1011· 3d Cir.· 1991-01-16 ·cited 5×
  The court held that CERCLA's jurisdictional limitations under § 113(h) preclude district courts from hearing claims challenging EPA pre-cleanup activities, even if those claims arise under other federal statutes like the Preservation Act.
• Dillon v. Combs
  895 F.2d 1175· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that there is no federal question jurisdiction because the Product Liability Risk Retention Act does not create a private right of action for states to enforce its provisions in federal court.
• Defenders OF Wildlife v. Adm'r, Env't Prot. Agency
  882 F.2d 1294· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-16 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) citizen suit provision allows plaintiffs to sue the EPA for violations, and that the EPA's strychnine registrations constituted illegal takings. However, claims under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird
• News & Sun-Sentinel Co. v. Cox
  702 F. Supp. 891· S.D. Fla.· 1988-12-19 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Florida Statute § 337.406, as written, is an unconstitutional restriction on First Amendment rights because it is overbroad and not narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. The court also denied claims regarding the Sunshine Act and tort
• Joint Bd. OF Control OF the Flathead v. United States
  862 F.2d 195· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-29 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Joint Board failed to exhaust its administrative remedies by not participating in the BIA's comment period or administrative appeal process before filing suit.
• Monks v. Clark Hetherington
  573 F.2d 1164· 10th Cir.· 1978-03-30 ·cited 5×
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action seeking to establish a defense to a state law claim, even if that defense arises under federal law.
• Hancock v. Target Corp.
  2021 WL 1541511· M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the parties' pleadings failed to adequately establish diversity jurisdiction due to insufficient allegations of citizenship for individuals and entities.
• Oceana Star Allen and William Scott Allen v. Helms
  293 So. 3d 572· Fla. 1st DCA· 2020-03-24 ·cited 4×·via Federal Question
  The appellate court affirmed a trial court's decision that a notice to withdraw settlement proposals was a nullity. The court held that the plaintiffs, who had purchased the proposals from the defendant's bankruptcy trustee, did not possess the equitable interest necessary to wit
• Am. Policyholders Ins. Co. v. Nyacol Prods., Inc.
  989 F.2d 1256· 1st Cir.· 1993-02-24 ·cited 4×
  A suit against a federal officer solely in their official capacity is not removable to federal court under the officer removal statute (28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)) because it is considered a suit against the agency, which cannot remove under that statute.
• Bobula v. United States Dep't OF Just.
  970 F.2d 854· Fed. Cir.· 1992-07-14 ·cited 4×
  Ms. Bobula's remedy, if any, lies within the Civil Service Reform Act or internal grievance procedures, not direct judicial enforcement of her settlement agreement.
• Concerned Citizens OF Neb. (CCN) v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n (NRC)
  970 F.2d 421· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over statutory challenges to NRC regulations, but had jurisdiction over constitutional claims. The court affirmed the dismissal of Supremacy Clause, Ninth Amendment, and Equal Protection claims.
• Clark v. Busey
  959 F.2d 808· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's suit, and therefore, could not award attorney's fees and costs under the EAJA, as the exclusive jurisdiction for reviewing the FAA's actions lay with the court of appeals.
• Tamiami P'rs, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians
  788 F. Supp. 566· S.D. Fla.· 1992-03-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while it had jurisdiction, it would abstain from exercising it pending exhaustion of tribal remedies, and therefore stayed the federal action.
• Native Vill. OF Venetie I.R.A. Council v. State OF Alaska
  944 F.2d 548· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-12 ·cited 4×
  The Ninth Circuit held that federal courts have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims and that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) provides a federal cause of action for tribes and individuals to enforce its provisions, including the full faith and credit clause for tribal cou
• State v. Falcon
  556 So. 2d 762· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-01-26 ·cited 4×·via Federal Question
  Florida appealed the dismissal of an embezzlement charge against a contractor, arguing that section 713.34(3) was constitutional. The Second District Court of Appeal held that while the underlying embezzlement charge was valid, the statutory provision creating a prima facie evide
• Therese U. Donnelly v. United States
  850 F.2d 1313· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Donnellys' claims against the United States were barred by the statute of limitations under the Quiet Title Act, and that claims against Eklutna, Inc. were barred due to the United States' indispensable party status. Claims under ANCSA and constructive tru
• Werner R. Staacke v. United States Secretary OF Labor
  841 F.2d 278· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Federal Employees' Compensation Act's § 8128(b) bars judicial review of the Secretary of Labor's decision regarding disability payments, and the appellant failed to demonstrate a clear statutory mandate violation.
• Martinez v. United States Olympic Comm.
  802 F.2d 1275· 10th Cir.· 1986-10-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding no diversity jurisdiction due to improper joinder of a representative to create diversity, and no federal question jurisdiction as the complaint failed to sta
• Nw. S.D. Prod. Credit Ass'n v. Gilford L. Smith and Viola A. Smith
  784 F.2d 323· 8th Cir.· 1986-02-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the district court had jurisdiction to determine if a federal claim was stated, 25 U.S.C. § 483a does not create a federal cause of action for mortgage foreclosure on Indian trust lands, thus the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could
• Lafe W. Wilson and Cherie Wilson v. Mason State Bank
  738 F.2d 343· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-09 ·cited 4×
  The Emergency Agricultural Credit Adjustment Act of 1978 does not create or imply a private cause of action for a lender's alleged violation of its regulations, and therefore federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over such claims.
• Hughes-Bechtol, Inc. v. W. Va. Bd. OF Regents
  737 F.2d 540· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the West Virginia Board of Regents is an arm or agency of the State of West Virginia, not a citizen, thus precluding diversity jurisdiction, and that the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide the Eleventh Amendment issue.
• Food Town Stores, Inc. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n
  708 F.2d 920· 4th Cir.· 1983-05-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the EEOC's regulation is valid and does not conflict with the statute, and that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
• Ostroff v. State
  554 F. Supp. 347· M.D. Fla.· 1983-01-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims for damages arising from the termination of Social Security benefits, due to the Social Security Act's limitations and Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
• Schiff v. Kennedy
  691 F.2d 196· 4th Cir.· 1982-10-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the divorce settlement's release barred the suit against the former wife, but the dismissal of the action against John Doe was improper and should be remanded for further consideration.
• SAN Juan Legal Servs., Inc. v. Legal Servs. Corp.
  655 F.2d 434· 1st Cir.· 1981-07-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Legal Services Corporation had grounds to terminate funding for San Juan Legal Services due to program deficiencies and procedural fairness, and that San Juan was entitled to judicial review.
• S. SOG, Inc. v. Roland
  644 F.2d 376· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the federal district court had jurisdiction over Southern Sog's claim to the HUD escrow fund, but claims against HUD officials acting within their scope of employment were barred by sovereign immunity.
• Iron Arrow Honor Soc'y v. Hufstedler
  499 F. Supp. 496· S.D. Fla.· 1980-08-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the H.E.W. regulation prohibiting federal funding recipients from providing significant assistance to discriminatory organizations was a valid interpretation of Title IX and applied to the University of Miami's relationship with the male-only Iron Arrow Honor
• Lopez v. Arraras
  606 F.2d 347· 1st Cir.· 1979-10-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the case must be remanded because of serious doubts concerning the district court's jurisdiction and because HUD is a necessary party for proper resolution.
• Smith v. Washington
  593 F.2d 1097· D.C. Cir.· 1978-08-23 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the record did not permit a finding to a legal certainty that the jurisdictional amount was not satisfied, thus affirming the result.
• Inland OIL & Transp. Co. v. Brock Adams (previously William T. Coleman
  575 F.2d 184· 8th Cir.· 1978-04-24 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims became moot after the barges were certified and sold to third parties, rendering the controversy with the federal defendants nonexistent and the controversy with the builder pending elsewhere.
• Robert and Angeles O'Grady v. City OF Montpelier
  573 F.2d 747· 2d Cir.· 1978-03-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, as the factual record was insufficient to determine the constitutional questions presented.
• Ellis v. United States Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  551 F.2d 13· 3d Cir.· 1977-02-24 ·cited 4×
  Tenants of non-subsidized § 220 housing are not entitled to a hearing prior to HUD approval of a rental increase requested by their landlord.
• Guesnon v. McHENRY
  539 F.2d 1075· 5th Cir.· 1976-10-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a private cause of action cannot be implied from the HUD regulation at issue, and the case should be remanded to allow for HUD's participation.
• Econ. Opportunity Comm'n OF Nassau Cnty., Inc. v. Casper Weinberger
  524 F.2d 393· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the administrative proceedings were not a nullity despite HEW's failure to formally prescribe procedures, as NCEOC was not prejudiced and received adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. The court also affirmed HEW's authority to directly fund GCD.
• The Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Martinez
  519 F.2d 479· 10th Cir.· 1975-07-09 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  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.
• Texaco Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  481 F.2d 70· 10th Cir.· 1973-07-13 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  A claim based on contract, even if indirectly related to federal law or requiring reference to federal agency rates, does not arise under federal law for jurisdictional purposes.
• Burks v. Perk
  470 F.2d 163· 6th Cir.· 1972-11-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the District Court erred in enjoining the Mayor from conducting a hearing on charges against Civil Service Commissioners, as state law provided adequate remedies.
• Bailey v. Tarr
  469 F.2d 409· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the 1971 amendments to the Military Selective Service Act did not create a new 90-day moratorium on inductions, and therefore, induction orders issued during that period were not void.
• Prezzi v. Brig. Gen. L. J. Schelter
  469 F.2d 691· 2d Cir.· 1972-10-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that although the complaint asserted sufficient jurisdictional bases, it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Rhodes v. Sigler
  448 F.2d 1237· 8th Cir.· 1971-09-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a prisoner's claim over a small debt owed to the prison is not a violation of a federally protected right and thus not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Gardner v. United States
  446 F.2d 1195· 2d Cir.· 1971-07-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the United States has not consented to be sued for the torts alleged in the counterclaim, and constitutional amendments do not independently waive sovereign immunity for such claims.
• Davenport v. Berman
  420 F.2d 294· 2d Cir.· 1969-12-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims lacked sufficient factual support and jurisdictional basis to proceed.
• Elgin A. McKENNA v. Udall
  418 F.2d 1171· D.C. Cir.· 1969-07-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the case must be dismissed because indispensable parties (the GSA grantees) were not joined, and an alternative forum exists where all parties can be joined.
• State OF Ga. v. City OF Chattanooga
  406 F.2d 830· 6th Cir.· 1969-02-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Georgia's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the seizure of property moving in interstate commerce raised substantial federal questions.
• Merge v. Troussi
  394 F.2d 79· 3d Cir.· 1968-05-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction because subsequent amendments to the Housing Act withdrew jurisdiction from the courts to review administrative determinations regarding relocation payments.
• Simpson v. State OF Utah
  365 F.2d 185· 10th Cir.· 1966-08-30 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that a dispute over title to reliction lands, even if derived from federal patents, does not automatically confer federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) unless the controversy is determinable by interpretation of federal law.
• A. C. McKOY, Inc. v. Schonwald
  341 F.2d 737· 10th Cir.· 1965-02-16 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the trial court correctly dismissed the action for insufficiency of the amount in controversy, thus affirming the dismissal without reaching the merits.
• Sarelas v. Themis Anagnost
  332 F.2d 111· 7th Cir.· 1964-05-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the plaintiff's cause for want of jurisdiction, as none of the cited federal statutes or constitutional provisions provided a basis for jurisdiction.
• Peterson v. Tinsley
  331 F.2d 569· 10th Cir.· 1964-05-04 ·cited 4×·via Federal Question
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition because the appellant failed to raise a federal question and habeas corpus is not a substitute for direct appeal.
• Arctic Maid & Arctic Maid Fisheries, Inc. v. Territory OF Alaska
  297 F.2d 28· 9th Cir.· 1961-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that appeals taken before Alaska's statehood, which result in reversal, should be remanded to the state supreme court if federal jurisdiction would not have been proper under current law.