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

• Goulding v. Feinglass
  811 F.2d 1099· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiff's claims for lack of federal jurisdiction and properly denied his motion to amend the complaint.
• Weeks Constr., Inc. v. Oglala Sioux Hous. Auth.
  797 F.2d 668· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed Weeks' breach of contract action against the Oglala Sioux Housing Authority for lack of federal jurisdiction and that claims against the United States and HUD for damages over $10,000 belong exclusively in the Claims Cour
• John H. Freeman, M.D. v. Jacques Orthopaedic & Joint Implant Surgery Med. Grp., Inc.
  721 F.2d 654· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff was not a participant in the ERISA plan and the alleged acts occurred before ERISA's effective date.
• R.J. Williams Co. v. Fort Belknap Hous. Auth.
  719 F.2d 979· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-31 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the dispute requires interpretation of tribal law, which must first be decided by the tribal court. Federal question jurisdiction was denied as no federal claim was stated, and diversity jurisdictio
• Quackenbush v. Johnson City Sch. Dist.
  716 F.2d 141· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) provides an exclusive remedy, and a plaintiff cannot bypass its administrative procedures to seek damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Carter v. J.L. Kurzejeski
  706 F.2d 835· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-05 ·cited 26×
  Federal employees and their union must pursue claims of anti-union animus and related constitutional violations through the exclusive administrative and arbitral procedures established by the Civil Service Reform Act, rather than through an independent action in federal district
• Fountain v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth.
  678 F.2d 1038· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over claims alleging a taking of property for public use without just compensation, even if the entity lacks eminent domain power, but that abstention is appropriate pending resolution of a parallel state court a
• The State OF N.D. v. Merchs. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co.
  634 F.2d 368· 8th Cir.· 1980-08-06 ·cited 26×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that pendent jurisdiction existed for the state unfair competition claim against the banks, and that federal law did not preempt the state law in this instance.
• Appling Cnty. v. Mun. Elec. Auth. OF Ga.
  621 F.2d 1301· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-23 ·cited 26×
  The district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs' constitutional claims were insubstantial and the county lacked standing.
• Domingo Roque Molina v. Paul T. Richardson & the City of Los Angeles
  578 F.2d 846· 9th Cir.· 1978-07-21 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's decision, find jurisdiction, and infer a cause of action against the city directly from the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Fort Sumter Tours, Inc. v. Andrus
  564 F.2d 1119· 4th Cir.· 1977-11-03 ·cited 26×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the district court properly exercised its equity jurisdiction and correctly granted a preliminary injunction based on the balance of hardships, finding serious questions regarding the observance of statutory preference rights.
• The Network Project v. Corp. FOR Pub. Broad.
  561 F.2d 963· D.C. Cir.· 1977-07-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the District Court erred in dismissing the First Amendment claims for lack of jurisdiction or substantive merit, and that these claims should be remanded for disposition on the merits. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the statutory claims under the
• Lloyd A. FRY Roofing Co. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  554 F.2d 885· 8th Cir.· 1977-05-11 ·cited 26×
  A party subject to an EPA abatement order under the Clean Air Act cannot maintain a pre-enforcement action to challenge the order; such claims must be raised as a defense or counterclaim in an enforcement action brought by the EPA. Furthermore, challenges to the constitutionality
• Commonwealth OF Mass. v. United States Veterans Admin.
  541 F.2d 119· 1st Cir.· 1976-08-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Commonwealth's suit against the VA hospital was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, both under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act's citizen suit provision due to insufficient notice and under federal common law due to sovereign immunity.
• Howard v. Colbert Higgins
  379 F.2d 227· 10th Cir.· 1967-06-01 ·cited 26×
  Federal jurisdiction is lacking under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) for a claim alleging only the deprivation of a property right.
• Miller v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  341 F.2d 964· 9th Cir.· 1965-02-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that allegations of a due process violation arising from a tax sale are sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction, even if diversity jurisdiction is lacking.
• Helene P. Pierre v. Jordan
  333 F.2d 951· 9th Cir.· 1964-06-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appeal was timely and that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, as the primary purpose of the suit was to challenge the formation of a local water district, not to redress constitutional rights deprivat
• Harvey v. Sadler
  331 F.2d 387· 9th Cir.· 1964-04-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted against any of the defendants.
• Harrison-Halsted Cmty. Grp., Inc. v. Hous. & Home Fin. Agency
  310 F.2d 99· 7th Cir.· 1962-11-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue in federal court and failed to raise a substantial federal question, thus affirming the district court's dismissal.
• E. States Petroleum Corp. v. Rogers
  280 F.2d 611· D.C. Cir.· 1960-05-12 ·cited 26×
  The District Court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, as the Customs Court has exclusive jurisdiction over import tax disputes, and a single judge can dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
• Jacobson v. New York
  206 F.2d 153· 1st Cir.· 1953-07-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of federal question jurisdiction, as the Safety Appliance Acts do not create a private right of action for passengers, and diversity jurisdiction was absent.
• Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n OF Puerto RICO
  906 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1990-06-21 ·cited 25×
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction exists for a suit seeking to enjoin state officials from enforcing state laws preempted by federal statutes, and that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action to enforce the immunity granted by the Cable Act.
• N. Side Lumber Co. v. Block
  753 F.2d 1482· 9th Cir.· 1985-02-20 ·cited 25×
  The Tucker Act does not impliedly forbid equitable relief or preclude waiver of sovereign immunity for claims that government contracts were void.
• Sims v. State
  862 F.2d 1449· 11th Cir.· 1989-01-11 ·cited 24×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's decision. The court held that Florida Statute § 320.02(9) violates the Clean Air Act, as Congress has exclusively reserved to the federal government the enforcement of federal emission standards prior
• Commonwealth OF Mass. v. Departmental Grant Appeals Bd. OF the United States Dep't OF Health & Human Servs.
  815 F.2d 778· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-30 ·cited 24×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction because the Commonwealth's claim sought monetary relief, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Claims Court under the Tucker Act.
• State OF Tenn. ex rel. William M. Leech, Jr. v. Dole
  749 F.2d 331· 6th Cir.· 1984-11-29 ·cited 24×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the federal government is entitled to restitution for its share of bid rigging settlement funds paid to the state for federally funded projects, and that the district court has jurisdiction over the matter.
• Sandefur v. William A. Cherry, M.D.
  718 F.2d 682· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-13 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of federal claims but certified a state law claim regarding Louisiana's Medicaid reimbursement policies for optometrists and ophthalmologists to the Louisiana Supreme Court.
• Jordan v. United States
  694 F.2d 833· D.C. Cir.· 1982-11-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying relief under Rule 60(b) from the dismissal of the complaint due to a technical defect in service on the United States, where the failure was not attributable to the appellants and the government suffered no prejudice.
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. Coastal Petroleum Co.
  671 F.2d 419· 11th Cir.· 1982-03-04 ·cited 24×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the dispute over land title, even if hinging on navigability at statehood, was governed by state law once title passed from the federal government.
• Local Div. 732 v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth.
  667 F.2d 1327· 11th Cir.· 1982-01-29 ·cited 24×
  The panel majority incorrectly held that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over suits to enforce labor protective agreements under section 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transit Act.
• Warren v. Gov't Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n
  611 F.2d 1229· 8th Cir.· 1980-01-02 ·cited 24×
• R.I. Hosp. v. Califano
  585 F.2d 1153· 1st Cir.· 1978-10-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Medicare dispute because the hospital failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h), and that the Medicaid claim was inextricably tied to the Medicare dispute, thus al
• Prescription Plan Serv. Corp. v. Franco
  552 F.2d 493· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-04 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the federal question claim but erred in dismissing the diversity claim, as the non-diverse trustees were not indispensable parties and leave to amend should be granted.
• Local 1498 v. Am. Fed'n OF Gov't Emps.
  522 F.2d 486· 3d Cir.· 1975-08-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) does not apply to unions composed exclusively of federal government employees, and therefore, federal courts lack jurisdiction over claims brought under the LMRDA against such unions and their officers.
• Francis P. and E. Edith McCULLOUGH v. Redev. Auth. OF the City OF Wilkes-Barre
  522 F.2d 858· 3d Cir.· 1975-07-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Urban Renewal Handbook provisions do not mandate acquisition of individual properties based on owner cost or financial resources, nor do they confer a right to have properties acquired.
• Partain v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Montgomery
  467 F.2d 167· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-13 ·cited 24×
  A national bank charging compounded interest on credit card balances violates federal usury laws, even if state law might have permitted it under different circumstances, leading to forfeiture of all interest charged.
• Bright v. Louie B. Nunn
  448 F.2d 245· 6th Cir.· 1971-09-24 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Governor and University President acted within their authority in imposing restrictions during campus disorders, and these actions did not violate students' First Amendment rights.
• Tredwell A. Harrison and M. Gale Harrison v. Brooks
  446 F.2d 404· 1st Cir.· 1971-07-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Counts IX and X for lack of jurisdiction, finding sufficient allegations of purposeful discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and related jurisdictional statutes.
• Helmsley v. City OF Detroit
  320 F.2d 476· 6th Cir.· 1963-07-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction because Michigan law provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for challenging ad valorem tax assessments.
• Lowe v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist. OF LOS Angeles Cnty.
  222 F.2d 258· 9th Cir.· 1955-04-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction, as a claim arising under the Fourteenth Amendment provides a basis for federal question jurisdiction.
• Chicago Metallic MFG. Co. v. Edward Katzinger Co.
  123 F.2d 518· 7th Cir.· 1941-11-12 ·cited 24×·via Federal Question
  The court held that a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment on patent validity and infringement, despite a pending state court action, states a valid cause of action and should not have been dismissed.
• Guadamuz v. Bowen
  859 F.2d 762· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-18 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court erred by not deferring to the Secretary's interpretation of attorneys' fees provisions and associated procedures, finding them to be within the Secretary's discretion and not contrary to statute or the APA.
• Doctor Nui Loa Price v. State OF Haw.
  764 F.2d 623· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-25 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the Hou Hawaiians do not qualify for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1362 because they are not a federally recognized tribe, but federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 exists due to the federal-state compact. However, claims against the State are
• Harold H. Gordon and the Estate of Louis P. Begin v. City OF Warren
  579 F.2d 386· 6th Cir.· 1978-06-26 ·cited 23×
  A direct cause of action exists against municipalities to recover damages for a taking of private property for public use without just compensation, and the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the controversy over the taking is resolved.
• Rincon Band OF Mission Indians v. Cnty. OF SAN Diego & J. C. O'Connor
  495 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-18 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a general threat of enforcement, without a history of prosecution or specific immediacy, is insufficient to establish a justiciable case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution and the Declaratory Judgment Act. The court also found that a party ca
• Johnson v. Hood
  430 F.2d 610· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-03 ·cited 23×
  The federal court system lacks jurisdiction over claims challenging state election results based on allegations of arbitrary ballot rejection.
• Port Auth. Bondholders Protective Comm. v. Port OF NEW York Auth.
  387 F.2d 259· 2d Cir.· 1967-11-17 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claim of federal question jurisdiction was unsubstantial because the Supreme Court had previously dismissed a substantially identical claim for want of a substantial federal question.
• Ayuda, Inc. v. Thornburgh
  948 F.2d 742· D.C. Cir.· 1991-11-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims challenging the INS' administration of IRCA, as such challenges must be brought through the statutory administrative and judicial review process, typically in the courts of appeals.
• S. DELTA Water Agency v. United States
  767 F.2d 531· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) waives sovereign immunity for suits seeking relief other than money damages, and that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides jurisdiction for such claims, even if the McCarran Amendment does not apply.
• Amen v. City OF Dearborn
  718 F.2d 789· 6th Cir.· 1983-10-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court properly found subject-matter jurisdiction under the amended 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that the City's conduct constituted a taking of private property without just compensation, but reversed the finding that acquisitions lacked a public purpose.