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

• Patzig v. O'Neil
  577 F.2d 841· 3d Cir.· 1978-04-17 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court erred in directing a verdict on the false arrest claim, as the issue of probable cause should have gone to the jury, but affirmed the directed verdict on due process and cruel and unusual punishment claims.
• City OF Milwaukee v. Saxbe
  546 F.2d 693· 7th Cir.· 1976-11-12 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the City of Milwaukee lacked standing to sue the Attorney General for discriminatory enforcement of civil rights laws and that the district court erred in finding subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
• Hahn v. United States
  757 F.2d 581· 3d Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over monetary claims exceeding $10,000, and erred in concluding plaintiffs were entitled to constructive service credit under applicable statutes.
• Westinghouse Elec. Corp. & its subsidiary v. Schlesinger
  542 F.2d 1190· 4th Cir.· 1976-09-30 ·cited 55×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 1905 qualifies under Exemption 3 of the Freedom of Information Act, and that suppliers of confidential information have a right to challenge agency disclosure decisions through judicial review, including evidentiary hearings.
• Rockbridge v. Lincoln
  449 F.2d 567· 9th Cir.· 1971-09-01 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the district court has jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act to review the Commissioner of Indian Affairs' failure to regulate traders on the Navajo Reservation, and that sovereign immunity does not bar the action.
• Manual de J. Gomez v. Wilson
  477 F.2d 411· D.C. Cir.· 1973-03-23 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court correctly found police spot checks unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, but the case should be remanded for further proceedings to determine the scope of relief, particularly regarding class action.
• Chandler v. O'Bryan
  445 F.2d 1045· 10th Cir.· 1971-05-11 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court's declaratory judgment was not justified as necessary to protect or effectuate a prior federal judgment, nor was the claim of judicial immunity sufficient for original federal jurisdiction.
• Progress Dev. Corp. v. Mitchell
  286 F.2d 222· 7th Cir.· 1961-01-04 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief, but erred in dismissing certain counts of the complaint and dismissing one of the plaintiffs.
• Martori Bros. Distribs. v. Jyrl James-Massengale
  781 F.2d 1349· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-30 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board's (ALRB) 'make-whole' remedy, which includes fringe benefits, is not preempted by ERISA, nor does it violate the Contract Clause or Fifth Amendment.
• Nat'l Ass'n OF Home Health Agencies v. Schweiker
  690 F.2d 932· D.C. Cir.· 1982-09-14 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the claims and that the Secretary must comply with the APA's notice and comment provisions. However, it reversed the district court's holding that the Secretary lacked the statutory authority to require Home Health Agen
• Megapulse, Inc. v. Drew Lewis
  672 F.2d 959· D.C. Cir.· 1982-01-29 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as Megapulse's claim was not a disguised contract action barred by the Tucker Act but rather a valid claim under the Administrative Procedure Act for injunctive relief.
• City OF Houston & Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Standard-Triumph Motor Co., Inc.
  347 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1965-05-25 ·cited 52×
• Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. Martin
  643 F.2d 1376· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-01 ·cited 50×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The district court had jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment regarding contract rights, and it did not err in estopping the United States from denying the concession agreement extension based on representations made.
• Trinity Mem'l Hosp. OF Cudahy, Inc. v. Associated Hosp. Serv., Inc.
  570 F.2d 660· 7th Cir.· 1977-12-16 ·cited 50×
  The district court's subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is precluded by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h), even for constitutional claims.
• Merriam v. Kunzig
  476 F.2d 1233· 3d Cir.· 1973-02-16 ·cited 50×
  The panel's opinion may have obscured the significance of the substantive legal claim issue by combining it with the standing issue.
• Cortright v. Resor
  447 F.2d 245· 2d Cir.· 1971-08-20 ·cited 50×
  The court held that while courts must be scrupulous not to interfere with legitimate military matters, the exercise of First Amendment rights by service members is not exclusively an Army matter and may warrant judicial intervention.
• United States ex rel. Edward Bennett No. H-6720 v. Alfred T. Rundle, Warden of E. Corr. Inst., Graterford, Pa
  419 F.2d 599· 3d Cir.· 1969-12-05 ·cited 50×·via Federal Question
  The court held that the Pennsylvania practice of a preliminary hearing to determine confession voluntariness, followed by jury determination in public, satisfies the Sixth Amendment's public trial requirement.
• Parks v. United States Internal Revenue Serv.
  618 F.2d 677· 10th Cir.· 1980-03-27 ·cited 49×
  The court held that employees may maintain a civil action under the Privacy Act for unauthorized disclosure of personnel files used for soliciting bond purchases, and that allegations of psychological harm constitute an adverse effect sufficient for a damages claim.
• The Rath Packing Co. v. Becker
  530 F.2d 1295· 9th Cir.· 1975-10-29 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Rath's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, and that abstention or comity did not require relinquishing jurisdiction.
• Brown v. Dixie Herlong Chastain
  416 F.2d 1012· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-04 ·cited 49×
  The district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 to hear claims alleging deprivation of constitutional rights by state judicial officers. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not preclude this jurisdicti
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. City OF Long Beach
  772 F.2d 534· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-24 ·cited 48×
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction was not present for claims turning solely on contract interpretation, but diversity jurisdiction was improperly declined based on abstention principles. The court reversed dismissal of diversity claims and remanded, while affirmin
• Hanson v. Town OF Flower Mound
  679 F.2d 497· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-02 ·cited 48×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a final decision even if no separate judgment document was entered, provided the appellee does not object. The court also held that claims regarding the republican form of government and an arrest without probable cau
• Arlo Tatum v. Laird
  444 F.2d 947· D.C. Cir.· 1971-04-27 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims of a chilling effect on their First Amendment rights due to the Army's information gathering, without allegations of actual misuse or concrete threat, did not present a justiciable case or controversy.
• Gertrude P. Fuller v. Volk
  351 F.2d 323· 3d Cir.· 1965-09-30 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the original plaintiffs (taxpayers) due to insufficient amount in controversy and that the record was insufficient to determine jurisdiction for the intervening plaintiffs.
• Great W. United Corp. v. Kidwell
  577 F.2d 1256· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-10 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the Idaho Takeover Statute is preempted by the Williams Act and violates the Commerce Clause, and that personal jurisdiction over the Idaho Director of Finance was proper in Texas.
• Benjamins v. British European Airways
  572 F.2d 913· 2d Cir.· 1978-03-06 ·cited 47×
  The dissenting judge argues that Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention does not create a cause of action for wrongful death, but rather a presumption of liability that is conditioned by local law.
• Jacobson v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency
  566 F.2d 1353· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-21 ·cited 47×
  The court held that while a cause of action for inverse condemnation against the TRPA fails due to lack of condemnation authority, a due process claim under the Fifth Amendment is stated. The TRPA is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment unless immunity is waived, and off
• The State OF Wash. v. The Am. League OF Prof'l Baseball Clubs
  460 F.2d 654· 9th Cir.· 1972-04-07 ·cited 47×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that a case removed to federal court based on federal antitrust claims, which are exclusively within federal jurisdiction, must be remanded to state court if the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, even if the federal court would have had original juris
• Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated Tribes OF THE Colville Reservation
  873 F.2d 1221· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-20 ·cited 46×
  The Ninth Circuit held that the district court correctly found diversity jurisdiction but erred in dismissing the case on comity grounds without requiring exhaustion of tribal remedies.
• Cervoni v. Secretary OF Health
  581 F.2d 1010· 1st Cir.· 1978-06-27 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff physician did not possess a protected property interest in continued reimbursement under Part B of the Medicare Act and therefore had no colorable du
• Amen v. City OF Dearborn
  532 F.2d 554· 6th Cir.· 1976-03-24 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the plaintiffs failed to establish that each class member met the $10,000 amount in controversy requirement, and the district court overlooked the defendant's denial of this allega
• Anton E. Sperling v. United States
  515 F.2d 465· 3d Cir.· 1975-05-02 ·cited 46×
  The court held that Section 717 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 applies retroactively to cases pending administrative review at its enactment, and that federal employees are entitled to a de novo trial in district court, not merely review of the administrative rec
• Opelika Nursing Home, Inc. v. Elliott L. Richardson
  448 F.2d 658· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-16 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based solely on the pleadings, without allowing the plaintiffs an opportunity to present evidence to support their jurisdictional claim.
• Lon C. Sigafus v. Sheriff Herald D. Brown
  416 F.2d 105· 7th Cir.· 1969-08-04 ·cited 46×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that a pro se complaint alleging destruction of legal papers necessary for a post-conviction hearing, which frustrates access to the courts, states a claim under the Civil Rights Act and should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.
• Graf v. Elgin
  697 F.2d 771· 7th Cir.· 1983-01-07 ·cited 45×
  The court held that a union's duty of fair representation under the Railway Labor Act is breached only by deliberate and unjustifiable refusal to represent, not mere negligence. Federal jurisdiction exists for claims arising under federal common law concerning collective bargaini
• Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co.
  846 F.2d 1190· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-16 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but erred in dismissing claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the RICO and state law claims, which should be remanded for further proceedings on statutes of limitation
• City OF LAS Vegas v. Clark Cnty.
  755 F.2d 697· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-11 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the City's claims under the Clean Water Act and for due process violations were properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the claim under the Consent Decree failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• First Jersey Sec., Inc. v. Bergen
  605 F.2d 690· 3d Cir.· 1979-08-29 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and therefore, mandamus is appropriate to compel dismissal.
• Lieutenant Alice C. Cook v. Rear Admiral Williard P. Arentzen
  582 F.2d 870· 4th Cir.· 1978-09-19 ·cited 44×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims because the monetary relief sought exceeded $10,000, and the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over such claims. Therefore, the case must be transferred to the Court of Claims.
• Smith v. Grimm
  534 F.2d 1346· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-13 ·cited 44×
  The court held that there was no valid federal jurisdictional basis for the lawsuit, as the dispute was primarily a state law contract issue and not a substantial federal question or a proper case for mandamus.
• Skolnick v. Martin
  317 F.2d 855· 7th Cir.· 1963-05-07 ·cited 44×
  The court held that attorneys acting in private state court litigation are not acting under color of state law for purposes of the Federal Civil Rights Acts, and thus federal courts lack jurisdiction to review such proceedings.
• Esquire, Inc. v. Ringer
  591 F.2d 796· D.C. Cir.· 1978-08-14 ·cited 43×
  The court holds that the Copyright Act and its regulations preclude registration of designs where the sole intrinsic function is utility, and that administrative denial of registration in this case was not an abuse of discretion.
• Stapp v. Avoyelles Parish Sch. Bd.
  545 F.2d 527· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-17 ·cited 43×
  The dissenting judge holds that a letter of intent from a superintendent does not create a property interest in re-employment protected by due process under Louisiana law.
• McKEEL v. The Islamic Republic OF Iran & the United States
  722 F.2d 582· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-30 ·cited 42×
  The court held that federal question and diversity jurisdiction do not apply to suits against foreign states, and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not waive Iran's immunity for tortious acts occurring outside the United States.
• Wright v. State OF Tenn.
  628 F.2d 949· 6th Cir.· 1980-08-11 ·cited 42×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The Sixth Circuit en banc held that the 180-day notice requirement under the ADEA is not a jurisdictional prerequisite, allowing for equitable tolling, and overruled prior precedent to the contrary.
• James v. Reese
  546 F.2d 325· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-10 ·cited 42×·via Federal Question
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner failed to exhaust available state remedies for all claims raised.
• Gerard and Gemma Brault v. Town OF Milton
  527 F.2d 730· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-24 ·cited 42×
• Duncan v. Nelson
  466 F.2d 939· 7th Cir.· 1972-03-29 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while a plaintiff cannot recover damages for conviction and incarceration resulting from an improperly admitted involuntary confession, they may still pursue a claim for harm suffered due to the unlawful interrogation itself.
• Walker v. Bank OF Am. Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'n
  268 F.2d 16· 9th Cir.· 1959-05-22 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction, and that the denial of the motion to alter the dismissal order was not an abuse of discretion because the proposed amended complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Trans-Bay Eng'rs & Builders, Inc. v. Hills
  D.D.C.· 1976-12-30 ·cited 41×
  The court held that Trans-Bay is conditionally entitled to recover retained construction funds under equitable doctrines, reversing summary judgment for HUD and Advance.