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

• McMahon v. Presidential Airways, Inc.
  410 F. Supp. 2d 1189· M.D. Fla.· 2006-01-24
  The court held that the case was properly removed to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, because the defendant acted under federal direction and had colorable federal defenses.
• Vargas v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  373 F. Supp. 2d 1323· M.D. Fla.· 2005-06-20 ·via Federal Question
  The court held that most of the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred, failed to meet the standards for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), or were based on state law issues not cognizable in federal habeas corpus.
• Martyak v. Martyak
  378 F. Supp. 2d 1365· S.D. Fla.· 2005-06-03
  The federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the state court's final judgment on alimony enforcement, and thus remanded the case to state court.
• Guetling v. Household Fin. Servs., Inc.
  312 B.R. 699· M.D. Fla.· 2004-07-20
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief and lacked standing for certain claims, but granted leave to amend the complaint.
• Faye L. Roth Revocable Tr. v. UBS Painewebber Inc.
  323 F. Supp. 2d 1279· S.D. Fla.· 2004-03-30
  The court held that Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act applies only to registered public offerings, not private placements, and therefore plaintiffs could not bring a Section 12(a)(2) claim for the unregistered offering at issue.
• Fla. Dep't of Ins. v. Chase Bank of Tex. Nat'l Ass'n
  243 F. Supp. 2d 1293· N.D. Fla.· 2002-12-10
  A claim filed within a state court delinquency proceeding, even if it would be removable if filed as a separate action, is not removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) unless the entire proceeding is removable or the claim arises under federal law as per the amended 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c
• Bouie v. Am. Gen. Life & Accident Ins.
  199 F. Supp. 2d 1259· N.D. Fla.· 2002-04-19
  The court held that the action was not removable because it did not present a federal question and diversity jurisdiction was defeated by the non-diverse joinder of individual defendants who were not fraudulently joined.
• Allstar Care Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of S.C.
  184 F. Supp. 2d 1295· S.D. Fla.· 2002-01-30
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under the Medicare Act, even when brought under diversity jurisdiction, because they were inextricably intertwined with Medicare benefits determinations.
• Alino v. Aerovias De Mexico, S.A.
  129 F. Supp. 2d 1341· S.D. Fla.· 2000-11-17
  The court held that the Air Carrier's Access Act does not apply to foreign air carriers operating flights entirely within a foreign country, and thus dismissed the federal claim.
• Seguros Commercial Am. v. Hall
  115 F. Supp. 2d 1371· M.D. Fla.· 2000-09-15
  The court held that while the Convention is self-executing and grants federal jurisdiction, it does not create a private right of action for the Mexican insurers to pursue claims in federal court.
• Wichman v. Cnty. of Volusia
  110 F. Supp. 2d 1354· M.D. Fla.· 2000-01-24
  A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily waived her ADA claims, precluding summary judgment.
• Norman v. Wilks
  154 F.R.D. 117· M.D. Fla.· 1998-07-02
  The court granted the motions to transfer the case to the Middle District of Tennessee, deferring ruling on the motions to dismiss.
• Parham v. Lámar
  1 F. Supp. 2d 1457· M.D. Fla.· 1998-04-16
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed because of lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, failure to state a constitutional tort, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Harris v. McDonald's Corp.
  901 F. Supp. 1552· M.D. Fla.· 1995-04-03
  The court held that while claims based on the FDCA, FDA Rules, Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were properly dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for racial discrimination in handling the insurance claim was sufficiently pleaded to
• Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. United States
  999 F.2d 581· D.C. Cir.· 1993-08-10
  The court held that the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act does not grant the government priority over an injured individual's claim to insurance proceeds, and that the limited fund should be divided ratably based on equitable principles.
• Marie Banks v. Sec'y OF The Ind. Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin.
  997 F.2d 231· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-15
  The court held that plaintiffs have standing to sue the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding alleged violations of Medicaid regulations, but affirmed the district court's dismissal because the plaintiffs failed to state a viable claim against either the federa
• Fostvedt v. United States
  978 F.2d 1201· 10th Cir.· 1992-11-03
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to demonstrate an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity.
• Matao C. Yokeno v. Mafnas
  973 F.2d 803· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-28
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on federal question, and remanded for a determination of whether diversity jurisdiction exists, considering the federal anti-collusion statute.
• McAULIFFE v. Rice
  966 F.2d 979· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-21
  The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) provides the exclusive remedial scheme for federal personnel actions, precluding review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) even for employees excluded from the CSRA's direct procedures.
• Guerrero v. Michael P.W. Stone
  970 F.2d 626· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-16
  The court held that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying Guerrero's application to correct his military records, and that the district court erred in affirming the Board's decision.
• Su-Ra Enters., Inc. v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A.
  142 B.R. 502· S.D. Fla.· 1992-07-08
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to remand the case to state court, finding that federal jurisdiction was not proper and that abstention was warranted. Costs for the removal were denied.
• Barker v. Chesapeake & Ohio R.R.
  959 F.2d 1361· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-27
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim against the Union for breach of the duty of fair representation, but that they did state a claim against CSX under Section 797c of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act. The court reversed the dismissal of claims against CSX a
• Metro. Wash. Airports Auth. Prof'l Fire Fighters Ass'n Local 3217 v. United States
  959 F.2d 297· D.C. Cir.· 1992-03-24
  The court held that the lease provisions and the Authority's subsequent actions did not violate the Metropolitan Washington Airports Act of 1986, affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment.
• Me. State Bd. OF Educ. v. Lauro F. Cavazos
  956 F.2d 376· 1st Cir.· 1992-02-13
  The court held that the Department of Education (DOE) did not act arbitrarily or unlawfully in refusing to reimburse the Maine State Board of Education for administrative expenses incurred by a private contractor, as the Board itself did not incur those specific expenses.
• Westchester Mgmt. Corp. v. United States Dep't OF Health & Human Servs.
  948 F.2d 279· 6th Cir.· 1991-11-05
  The court held that a plaintiff cannot establish subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1346 for claims arising under the Medicare Act when the Act itself provides a specific, albeit limited, avenue for judicial review.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd.
  940 F.2d 536· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-06
  The court held that the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of the National Labor Relations Board's decision to assert jurisdiction over United Tote, as such review is limited to courts of appeals.
• Dyer v. Merrill Lynch
  928 F.2d 238· 7th Cir.· 1991-03-27
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that the churning and suitability claims failed on their merits.
• Cherokee Express v. Cherokee Express
  924 F.2d 603· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-24
  An appeal from a contempt order does not permit a collateral attack on the underlying injunction if the injunction was not timely appealed. The 'person injured' requirement of 49 U.S.C. § 11708 is an element of the cause of action, not a jurisdictional prerequisite.
• Solargistic Corp. & Geodesco, Inc. v. United States
  921 F.2d 729· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-11
  The court held that the IRS's disclosure to investors that a tax shelter promoter was under audit was authorized by statute, as the fact of the audit constituted return information of the investors themselves.
• Chuska Energy Co. v. Mobil Exploration & Producing N. Am., Inc.
  854 F.2d 727· 5th Cir.· 1988-09-13
  A federal court does not have removal jurisdiction over a state law contract claim, even if the defendant raises a federal statute as a defense, unless the federal issue is a necessary element of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint.
• Quarles v. Colo. Sec. Agency, Inc.
  843 F.2d 557· D.C. Cir.· 1988-04-08
  The court held that the employee's claim did not arise under federal law, thus the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
• Knight v. The Town OF Glocester
  831 F.2d 30· 1st Cir.· 1987-10-16
  The court held that the district court's order directing the town to enroll the plaintiff in the police academy could not stand because equity must follow the law and legal rights were not invaded.
• MacMANN v. J.R. Titus
  819 F.2d 8· 1st Cir.· 1987-05-28
  The court held that the sale of the aircraft mooted the plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief, divesting both the district court and the appellate court of jurisdiction.
• Sullivan v. Mochen
  646 F. Supp. 216· S.D. Fla.· 1986-10-23
  Removal to federal court was improper because diversity jurisdiction was not established at the time the complaint was filed, and no federal question was presented.
• City OF Independence v. Bond
  756 F.2d 615· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-26 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  Federal question jurisdiction exists when a case requires the interpretation of a federal statute, even if a contract contemplated by the statute is involved.
• White v. Clark
  750 F.2d 721· 8th Cir.· 1984-12-26
  The court held that the inmate's allegations failed to state a constitutional claim because post-deprivation remedies were available and the seizure was not alleged to be unlawful.
• Fidel Nieto-Santos v. Fletcher Farms
  743 F.2d 638· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-03
  The court held that a breach of contract claim, even if based on provisions mandated by federal law, does not create federal question jurisdiction absent clear congressional intent to create a federal cause of action. Furthermore, the court held that the claims did not meet the m
• Oil Res., Inc. v. Florida
  583 F. Supp. 1027· S.D. Fla.· 1984-04-06
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs failed to present a genuine federal question.
• The Bd. OF Elec. Light Comm'rs OF the City OF Burlington v. McCARREN
  725 F.2d 176· 2d Cir.· 1983-12-30
  The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment, finding that the Federal Power Act preempts state regulation of hydroelectric projects licensed by FERC and that the state board was precluded from relitigating issues already decided.
• Schlomann v. Ramsdell
  720 F.2d 20· 8th Cir.· 1983-11-01
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for relief from judgment.
• Coleman v. The United States
  715 F.2d 1156· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-19
  The district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims for breach of trust regarding unallotted Indian lands.
• Chaffin v. Taylor
  521 F. Supp. 1344· M.D. Fla.· 1981-09-16
  A parent receiving AFDC benefits on the basis of incapacity can establish eligibility by demonstrating inability to support OR care for their minor children, and states cannot deny benefits based solely on the ability to 'care' without considering the ability to 'support'.
• Boyster v. Roden
  628 F.2d 1121· 8th Cir.· 1980-09-02 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the fiduciary duties of officers of federally chartered production credit associations are not governed by federal common law, and thus the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
• Blomberg v. Schneiderheinz
  632 F.2d 698· 8th Cir.· 1980-08-29 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that dismissal without prejudice was not an error, allowing plaintiffs to replead if they can establish the "color of law" element.
• The Hearth, Inc. v. Dep't OF Pub. Welf.
  612 F.2d 981· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-03
  The court held that the appellant's complaint was fatally defective for failing to state an adequate basis for federal jurisdiction.
• Pratt v. Kelly
  585 F.2d 692· 4th Cir.· 1978-10-20 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Virginia retained civil jurisdiction over the Blue Ridge Parkway, meaning the state's wrongful death statute did not become a law of the United States.
• Schofield v. Cnty. OF Volusia
  580 F.2d 729· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-20
  The court held that the district court's dismissal order must be vacated and the case reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York.
• People OF the State OF Ill. ex rel. John J. Bowman v. Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n & Reserve Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  521 F.2d 704· 7th Cir.· 1975-08-19
  The court held that the State's Attorney, not being a member of the class he sought to represent, lacked standing under Rule 23 to bring the class action, thus affirming the dismissal of the complaint.
• Baldigo v. Postmaster Gen. OF the United States
  514 F.2d 142· 7th Cir.· 1975-04-07 ·via Federal Question
  The court held that the anti-pandering statute does not apply to mail that the recipient solicited, as this would be an unreasonable interpretation beyond congressional intent.
• Bayou Auguste Tenants Org. v. Romney
  506 F.2d 713· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-17
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish their right to maintain the litigation as a class action, thus affirming the dismissal for want of jurisdiction.