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

• Starnes v. Schweiker
  715 F.2d 134· 4th Cir.· 1983-08-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under both 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus) to review the Secretary's procedural challenges to Medicare benefit level determinations. It affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction
• State OF Wis. v. Odric Baker
  698 F.2d 1323· 7th Cir.· 1983-01-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court had original subject-matter jurisdiction and that the defendants, as tribal officials, are not immune from suit if they acted beyond the scope of powers granted by federal law, specifically the 1854 treaty.
• Murray v. United States
  686 F.2d 1320· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the United States had not waived sovereign immunity for the claims presented.
• Local Div. 1285 v. Jackson Transit Auth. & the City of Jackson
  650 F.2d 1379· 6th Cir.· 1981-06-03 ·cited 18×
  The Urban Mass Transportation Act, specifically § 13(c), does not create a private federal right of action for employees to sue municipal transit authorities for breach of contract.
• Dr. Joseph G. Bussey, Jr., M. D. and Amy Jackson, P. A. v. Harris
  611 F.2d 1001· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the administrative denial of Medicare reimbursement for physician's assistant services, as the constitutional claims were insubstantial and statutory review was precluded.
• Ms. Mary Ryan v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  565 F.2d 762· D.C. Cir.· 1977-10-25 ·cited 18×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  Federal agencies have a duty to ensure handicapped individuals receive equal opportunity in job assignments and promotions, and failure to comply allows for judicial review.
• Girardier v. Webster Coll.
  563 F.2d 1267· 8th Cir.· 1977-08-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a private college's refusal to issue transcripts to former students who discharged loan obligations in bankruptcy does not conflict with the Bankruptcy Act.
• Mason v. Belieu
  543 F.2d 215· D.C. Cir.· 1976-04-15 ·cited 18×
  The court agreed that the statute does not limit remedial provisions solely to passengers and that derivative damages for mental distress are not awardable. However, the concurring opinion found the lower court's award for direct injury to Mrs. Mason was not clearly erroneous.
• King v. Honorable Rogers C. B. Morton
  520 F.2d 1140· D.C. Cir.· 1975-10-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the constitutional right to a jury trial in serious criminal offenses applies to American Samoa, and jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
• Den Hartigh v. Latin
  485 F.2d 1068· D.C. Cir.· 1973-10-05 ·cited 18×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the District Court erred in transferring cases to Superior Court based solely on District of Columbia v. Carter, as federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) may exist for claims of constitutional violations by D.C. officers, and the amount in co
• Louella S. Da'Ville v. Wise
  470 F.2d 1364· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the notice of appeal was timely filed, and the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act is the exclusive remedy for the wrongful death of an offshore worker due to employer or co-employee negligence.
• The Albany Welf. Rights Org. DAY Care Ctr., Inc. v. Schreck
  463 F.2d 620· 2d Cir.· 1972-06-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged a claim for relief, stating that plaintiffs had a factual foundation to establish retaliation by defendants.
• State OF Okla. ex rel. J. Woodrow Wilson v. Blankenship
  447 F.2d 687· 10th Cir.· 1971-08-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to remove the state action because it did not arise under federal law, and therefore erred in denying the motion to remand.
• Cupo v. Cmty. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF NEW York
  438 F.2d 108· 2d Cir.· 1971-02-05 ·cited 18×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1337 for claims arising under the National Banking Act, regardless of the amount in controversy.
• Kiker v. Hefner
  409 F.2d 1067· 5th Cir.· 1969-04-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin state tax collection when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts, and that res judicata bars relitigation of claims between the same parties.
• Lesley v. State OF Okla. & Ray H. Page
  407 F.2d 543· 10th Cir.· 1969-02-27 ·cited 18×·via Federal Question
  A guilty plea induced by prosecutorial overreaching, especially with an unrepresented, youthful, and frightened defendant, is constitutionally infirm and involuntary.
• The Detroit Edison Co. v. E. China Twp. Sch. Dist. NO. 3
  378 F.2d 225· 6th Cir.· 1967-06-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that annexation of school districts is a political matter not subject to federal constitutional challenge, and that federal courts should abstain from hearing challenges to state tax assessments when a plain, speedy, and efficient state remedy exists.
• Stevens v. Frick
  372 F.2d 378· 2d Cir.· 1967-02-01 ·cited 18×
  The federal anti-injunction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, precludes federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings unless an exception applies, and no exception was demonstrated here.
• Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists v. Cornstubble
  295 F.2d 209· 5th Cir.· 1961-10-13 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority's interpretation leads to an illogical result regarding federal court access for airline labor disputes.
• Davis v. Foreman
  251 F.2d 421· 7th Cir.· 1958-01-22 ·cited 18×
• Wild v. State OF Okla.
  187 F.2d 409· 10th Cir.· 1951-02-21 ·cited 18×·via Federal Question
  A federal court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus based on perjured testimony unless it was knowingly used by prosecuting officers.
• Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Creek Cnty. v. Seber
  130 F.2d 663· 10th Cir.· 1942-08-22 ·cited 18×·via Federal Question
  The court held that the taxes paid were void and that a permanent injunction against their collection was warranted.
• Resnick v. KrunchCash, LLC
  34 F.4th 1028· 11th Cir.· 2022-05-20 ·cited 17×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' due process claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the claim was not so insubstantial or frivolous as to strip the court of its power to adjudicate.
• Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc. v. Thornburgh
  956 F.2d 914· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-13 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district courts had jurisdiction to hear challenges to INS regulations implementing IRCA, and that the courts had the equitable power to extend the legalization application deadline for aliens deterred by unlawful INS interpretations.
• S. Ohio Coal Co. v. Donovan
  774 F.2d 693· 6th Cir.· 1985-10-02 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district courts had jurisdiction to hear the operators' constitutional due process claims challenging the Mine Commission's Rule 44, and that the claims were not mooted by settlements with miners, nor barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
• ITT World Commc'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  699 F.2d 1219· D.C. Cir.· 1983-02-01 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing ITT's ultra vires claim for lack of standing and ripeness, and that subject matter jurisdiction was proper. It also modified the FOIA disclosure order, reversing it in part and affirming it in part.
• Skolnick v. Otto Spolar
  317 F.2d 857· 7th Cir.· 1963-05-07 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under federal jurisdiction, as the alleged actions did not constitute a deprivation of rights under color of state law.
• U.S. Bank v. Taveras
  2017 WL 5248499· M.D. Fla.· 2023-10-17 ·cited 16×
  The court denied defendants' motion for a stay pending appeal because they failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or establish any basis for federal jurisdiction.
• W. 14TH St. Commercial Corp. v. 5 W. 14TH Owners Corp.
  815 F.2d 188· 2d Cir.· 1987-03-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction was proper because the Condominium and Cooperative Abuse Relief Act provides a private right of action, and alternatively, because the state law claims presented a substantial federal question. Furthermore, the court found that t
• Sharp v. Caspar Weinberger
  798 F.2d 1521· D.C. Cir.· 1986-08-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's jurisdiction was not based on the Little Tucker Act, as the appellant's claims for equitable relief were properly grounded in the Administrative Procedure Act, and claims for contract breach seek
• Solomon Monk v. Secretary OF the Navy
  793 F.2d 364· D.C. Cir.· 1986-06-20 ·cited 16×
  The court lacks jurisdiction to hear the habeas corpus action because it was not filed where the petitioner's immediate custodian resides.
• Fairview Twp. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  773 F.2d 517· 3d Cir.· 1985-09-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the citizens' suit as seeking money damages, but that the suit must be dismissed because the EPA Administrator was not under a nondiscretionary duty to review the application within 45 days. However, the district court ha
• Weatherford v. Dole
  763 F.2d 392· 10th Cir.· 1985-06-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a federal employee reassigned to a similar position without change in grade or pay cannot sue in federal district court for damages or reinstatement based on alleged due process violations or denial of appeal rights.
• In re the Est. OF Michael Patrick Smith v. Heckler
  747 F.2d 583· 10th Cir.· 1984-10-29 ·cited 16×
  The Secretary of Health and Human Services has a statutory duty to develop and implement a system that ensures nursing facilities receiving federal funds provide high-quality patient care, not just theoretical capability.
• Hopewell Nursing Home v. Schweiker
  666 F.2d 34· 4th Cir.· 1981-11-30 ·cited 16×
• Alamo Navajo Sch. Bd., Inc. v. Andrus
  664 F.2d 229· 10th Cir.· 1981-11-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute was a contract claim exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, and the Bureau's duty to provide contingency funds was discretionary, not ministerial.
• Hargrave v. OKI Nursery, Inc.
  646 F.2d 716· 2d Cir.· 1980-12-19 ·cited 16×
  A federal district court, having acquired personal jurisdiction over a defendant for one claim under state long-arm statute, has the power to adjudicate all related claims arising from a common nucleus of operative fact, even if state law would limit state courts to only the clai
• Alburquerque v. Bara
  628 F.2d 767· 2d Cir.· 1980-07-31 ·cited 16×·via Federal Question
  The court held that the state's procedural requirements for raising a federal constitutional claim were not satisfied in a way that would bar federal habeas review, and that the appellant's trial jury was sworn after the date of Taylor v. Louisiana, making the ruling applicable.
• Kechijian v. Califano
  621 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1980-03-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies and federal question jurisdiction was barred by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).
• League TO Save Lake Tahoe, Inc. v. Trounday
  598 F.2d 1164· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act grant federal jurisdiction for citizen suits alleging violations of indirect source review programs, but the appellants failed to state a claim because they did not allege a violation of a specific emission limitation,
• Sydney Spiegel v. Sch. Dist. NO. 1
  600 F.2d 264· 10th Cir.· 1979-06-14 ·cited 16×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal civil rights claim was barred by the statute of limitations because he failed to file within two years of his termination, and his prior state court action did not toll the limitations period.
• The Am. Ass'n OF Councils OF Med. Staffs OF Private Hosps., Inc. v. Califano
  575 F.2d 1367· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Medicare Act, incorporating 42 U.S.C. § 405(h), precludes federal district court review of the Secretary's decisions, even for statutory or constitutional claims.
• League TO Save Lake Tahoe v. B.J.K. Corp.
  547 F.2d 1072· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-08 ·cited 16×
  Questions concerning the interpretation and application of TRPA ordinances present federal questions under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), as differing interpretations could impair the effectiveness of the Compact.
• Wright v. Ark. Activities Ass'n (AAA)
  501 F.2d 25· 8th Cir.· 1974-07-16 ·cited 16×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the Arkansas Activities Association's disciplinary ruling violated due process by imposing sanctions without fair notice of potential penalties for violating its regulations.
• Licia T. M. Cardinale v. Wash. Tech. Inst.
  500 F.2d 791· D.C. Cir.· 1974-06-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently stated a claim arising under the Constitution to invoke the District Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
• James v. Lusby
  499 F.2d 488· D.C. Cir.· 1974-04-24 ·cited 16×
  The District Court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the case to the Superior Court because the record did not demonstrate to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold.
• Spalitta v. Nat'l Am. Bank OF NEW Orleans
  444 F.2d 291· 5th Cir.· 1971-05-26 ·cited 16×·via Federal Question
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the stockholders' derivative and class action, as the complaint stated claims upon which relief could be granted and the dismissal was premature.
• Uwamie Tomiyasu v. Golden
  358 F.2d 651· 9th Cir.· 1966-03-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on res judicata, but should have abstained from exercising jurisdiction, remanding for dismissal without prejudice.
• Sarelas v. Sheehan
  326 F.2d 490· 7th Cir.· 1963-12-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a plaintiff alleging mere procedural errors in state court proceedings, without a showing of constitutional deprivation, cannot maintain a federal civil rights action against a deposition officer.
• United States ex rel. John Sadowy v. FAY
  284 F.2d 426· 2d Cir.· 1960-11-25 ·cited 16×·via Federal Question
  The exclusion of lie detector test results by the trial court, even if erroneous under state law, does not raise a federal question and does not violate due process.