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

• Judge v. City OF Buffalo
  524 F.2d 1321· 2d Cir.· 1975-10-24 ·cited 40×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether the plaintiff was denied promotion due to height or failure to pass an agility test.
• Bradford Audio Corp. v. Pious
  392 F.2d 67· 2d Cir.· 1968-03-29 ·cited 40×
  A court-appointed receiver, acting under a facially valid court order, is immune from liability for seizing property as directed by that order, and a claim for seizure of property rights does not fall under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Moore v. Warwick Pub. Sch. Dist. NO. 29
  794 F.2d 322· 8th Cir.· 1986-06-13 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the section 504 claim and in sua sponte granting summary judgment on the section 1983 due process claims.
• Reeves v. City OF Jackson
  532 F.2d 491· 5th Cir.· 1976-06-01 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint, alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, and failure to provide medical care, stated tenable claims under federal and state law, and should not have been dismissed at the pleading stage.
• Littell v. Nakai
  344 F.2d 486· 9th Cir.· 1965-04-16 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute involved the internal affairs of the Navajo Tribe, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Navajo Tribal Court.
• In re Mexico City Aircrash OF October 31 v. W. Airlines, Inc.
  708 F.2d 400· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-24 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Federal Aviation Act does not create an implied private right of action for damages, but the Warsaw Convention does create an independent cause of action for wrongful death. The dismissal of claims for one decedent was reversed due to genuine issues of mat
• People OF the State OF Ill. v. Gen. Elec. Co. & S. Cal. Edison Co.
  683 F.2d 206· 7th Cir.· 1982-07-13 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Illinois Spent Fuel Act violates the Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce and that federal jurisdiction was proper. The court also found that removal of the state court action was improper.
• Ramey Constr. Co., Inc. v. The Apache Tribe OF the Mescalero Reservation
  673 F.2d 315· 10th Cir.· 1982-03-22 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Mescalero Apache Tribe is immune from suit due to sovereign immunity and that Boyle Engineering Corporation is not liable for negligence or misrepresentation claims. The court affirmed the district court's judgment.
• Marcus Garvey Square, Inc. v. Winston Burnett Constr. Co. OF Cal., Inc.
  595 F.2d 1126· 9th Cir.· 1979-01-18 ·cited 38×
  The dissenting judge would find that jurisdiction existed and the general contractor is entitled to recover contractually retained percentages and unpaid progress payments.
• Herrmann v. Moore
  576 F.2d 453· 2d Cir.· 1978-05-10 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants acted under color of state law to deprive him of constitutional rights, or that they conspired with the requisite discriminatory animus for § 1985 claims.
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. Kelley
  493 F.2d 784· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-06 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court had federal question jurisdiction over the claims against state officials, and thus pendent jurisdiction over related state law claims, affirming the district court's decision.
• Nat'l Land & Inv. Co. v. Arlen Specter
  428 F.2d 91· 3d Cir.· 1970-06-25 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the district court's order denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary prerequisites.
• Kerr v. City OF Chicago
  424 F.2d 1134· 7th Cir.· 1970-03-11 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court erred in striking allegations and refusing evidence regarding the plaintiff's involuntary confession and illegal detention, and in refusing several jury instructions. However, the dismissal of the City of Chicago was affirmed.
• The Republic OF the Philippines v. Ferdinand E. Marcos
  806 F.2d 344· 2d Cir.· 1986-11-26 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the district court properly granted a preliminary injunction because there was sufficient evidence to support probable ownership by the Marcoses and federal question jurisdiction existed due to the foreign policy implications of the case.
• In re "agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation
  635 F.2d 987· 2d Cir.· 1980-11-24 ·cited 37×
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction exists because the case arises under federal common law, requiring a uniform rule of product liability for veterans exposed to Agent Orange.
• Willy Dreyfus v. August von Finck and Merck
  534 F.2d 24· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-06 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims under treaties and the law of nations failed to state a cause of action for which relief could be granted in U.S. District Court.
• Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Waller
  906 F.2d 985· 4th Cir.· 1990-06-27 ·cited 36×
  A plan administrator can recover advanced benefits under federal common law of unjust enrichment, even if they failed to obtain a signed repayment agreement, when the plan terms and ERISA's equitable principles support such recovery.
• Hameetman v. The City OF Chicago
  776 F.2d 636· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 36×
• Kuehner v. Schweiker
  717 F.2d 813· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the class action complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, reversing the dismissal.
• Goss v. SAN Jacinto Junior Coll.
  588 F.2d 96· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court had proper jurisdiction, the college was not immune under the Eleventh Amendment, and there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the instructor's contract was not renewed due to First Amendment activity.
• Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Costle
  572 F.2d 1349· 9th Cir.· 1978-04-05 ·cited 36×
  The majority opinion reversed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding the EPA Administrator's duty discretionary. Judge Hauk dissents, arguing the duty was nondiscretionary and the injunction proper.
• Nguyen DA YEN v. Kissinger
  528 F.2d 1194· 9th Cir.· 1975-11-05 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under the habeas corpus statute and that plaintiffs' attorneys must have access to children's records to determine claims of illegal detention.
• NEW York State Waterways Ass'n, Inc. v. Diamond
  469 F.2d 419· 2d Cir.· 1972-11-10 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and in denying a three-judge court, as the constitutional claims were not insubstantial.
• Webster Bivens v. SIX Unknown Named Agents OF the Fed. Bureau OF Narcotics
  409 F.2d 718· 2d Cir.· 1969-04-10 ·cited 36×
  Federal courts can entertain state-created causes of action against federal officers for constitutional violations, even if no specific federal statute authorizes such suits.
• Odis R. VAN Buskirk v. Wilkinson
  216 F.2d 735· 9th Cir.· 1954-11-08 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the petition failed to allege an amount in controversy and that, even if treated as a habeas corpus petition, the inmate's claim of double jeopardy was without merit.
• Gustav E. Beerly v. Dep't OF the Treas.
  768 F.2d 942· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 35×
  The Comptroller's statutory appraisal of dissenting shareholders' shares, conducted without an oral evidentiary hearing, was constitutionally adequate and judicially reviewable under a deferential standard.
• Buechold v. Ortiz
  401 F.2d 371· 9th Cir.· 1968-10-01 ·cited 35×
  Federal courts lack original jurisdiction over paternity and child support cases, even with diversity of citizenship and treaty provisions granting access, as these matters fall under domestic relations traditionally handled by state courts.
• Airco Indus. Gases v. The Teamsters Health & Welf. Pension Fund OF Philadelphia & Vicinity
  850 F.2d 1028· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-30 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court's factual finding regarding the refund policy was clearly erroneous due to a disregarded admission, requiring vacation of the refund award. The court affirmed the denial of interest and attorneys' fees.
• McMICHAEL v. Cnty. OF Napa & Napa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors
  709 F.2d 1268· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-16 ·cited 34×
  The suit must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, not for lack of standing.
• Indus. Indem., Inc. v. Moon Landrieu
  615 F.2d 644· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) because the suit against the Secretary of HUD for construction retainages arose under federal law and could be paid from a fund separate from the Treasury.
• GAY Student Servs. v. Tex. A & M Univ.
  612 F.2d 160· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-20 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case, as the university and its officials could be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Eleventh Amendment immunity did not bar injunctive or declaratory relief.
• Southpark Square Ltd. v. City OF Jackson
  565 F.2d 338· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-27 ·cited 34×
  The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's claim that the denial of a building permit constituted a taking was insubstantial and frivolous.
• Eli M. Spark v. The Catholic Univ. of Am.
  510 F.2d 1277· D.C. Cir.· 1975-04-07 ·cited 34×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that federal funding alone does not convert a private university into a governmental agency for the purpose of establishing federal question jurisdiction, and that dispensing with an oral hearing on a summary judgment motion is permissible in appropriate circumstan
• Wounded Knee Legal Defense/Offense Comm. v. The Fed. Bureau OF Investigation
  507 F.2d 1281· 8th Cir.· 1974-11-07 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court in its jurisdictional findings, refusal to recuse, rejection of affidavits, or application of preliminary injunction standards.
• Chaudoin v. Atkinson
  494 F.2d 1323· 3d Cir.· 1974-04-10 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Adjutant General abused his discretion and issued an unlawful order by dismissing a civilian technician for refusing a funeral detail duty unrelated to his job description, and that the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1361.
• Moses v. Kinnear
  490 F.2d 21· 9th Cir.· 1973-11-02 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court's stay order was appealable and that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, remanding the cases for further consideration in light of intervening Supreme Court decisions.
• Spock v. David
  469 F.2d 1047· 3d Cir.· 1972-10-27 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge believes the jurisdictional amount issue should be remanded to the District Court for a substantive determination, as the lower court made no such finding.
• McGUIRE v. Sadler
  337 F.2d 902· 5th Cir.· 1964-10-19 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the case, reversing the dismissal for want of jurisdiction.
• Schlette v. People OF the State OF Cal.
  284 F.2d 827· 9th Cir.· 1960-12-01 ·cited 34×·via Federal Question
• D'Amato v. Wis. GAS Co.
  760 F.2d 1474· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-25 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a third-party beneficiary claim under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act is not available, as Congress intended the administrative scheme to be the sole avenue of redress.
• The State OF Tex. v. Reuben Pankey
  441 F.2d 236· 10th Cir.· 1971-02-08 ·cited 33×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  A state's suit seeking protection from transboundary environmental pollution, based on federal common law, arises under the laws of the United States and is within the jurisdiction of federal district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), regardless of the state's party status.
• Cora Hubbard Williams v. Cora Williams Murdoch & Commonwealth Bank & Tr. Co.
  330 F.2d 745· 3d Cir.· 1964-04-20 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the dismissal of the plaintiff's federal due process claim by the lower court on res judicata grounds was improper because neither the Orphans' Court nor the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had actually adjudicated the due process issue.
• Hickey v. Duffy
  827 F.2d 234· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that even if a federal statutory claim was ripe, the district court should have abstained from deciding it due to parallel state proceedings and important state interests.
• Hilgeford v. The Peoples Bank
  776 F.2d 176· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-31 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a land patent alone does not create a federal question sufficient for federal court jurisdiction, and affirmed the district court's dismissal and sanctions.
• Alton BOX Bd. Co. v. Esprit de Corp.
  682 F.2d 1267· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred federal courts from enjoining the state court action, and there was no independent federal jurisdiction for declaratory relief on a preemption defense.
• The Amalgamated Sugar Co. & U & I Inc. v. Bergland
  664 F.2d 818· 10th Cir.· 1981-11-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the repayment of loans rendered the case moot, and the remaining claim for storage payments was a monetary claim against the United States properly brought in the Court of Claims, not the district court.
• Till v. Unifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n & Wortman & Mann, Inc.
  653 F.2d 152· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-07 ·cited 32×
• Howard Univ. v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
  510 F.2d 213· D.C. Cir.· 1975-03-25 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the NCAA's actions constitute state action, subjecting it to constitutional scrutiny, and affirmed the district court's decision to uphold the five-year and 1.600 rules while striking down the foreign-student rule.
• League TO Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency
  507 F.2d 517· 9th Cir.· 1974-11-22 ·cited 32×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  A federal court has original jurisdiction over a suit arising under a Congressionally sanctioned interstate compact because the compact is considered a law of the United States.
• P I Enters., Inc. v. Cataldo
  457 F.2d 1012· 1st Cir.· 1972-03-31 ·cited 32×
  A federal court action based on substantially identical facts and claims as a prior state court decision is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, even if the federal action seeks damages under a federal statute.