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

• Odell v. Burke
  281 F.2d 782· 7th Cir.· 1960-07-25 ·cited 16×·via Federal Question
  The court held that a petitioner's filing in the U.S. Supreme Court, though not explicitly a petition for certiorari, could be construed as such to satisfy the exhaustion of state remedies doctrine. It also held that denial of counsel at a preliminary hearing, or delay in trial w
• In re Costello
  262 F.2d 214· 9th Cir.· 1958-06-24 ·cited 16×·via Federal Question
  The court held that the prisoner's appeal raises no federal question and is without merit.
• Garden Homes, Inc. v. Mason
  249 F.2d 71· 1st Cir.· 1957-10-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute, and that federal jurisdiction was properly established.
• Art Johnston v. Earle
  245 F.2d 793· 9th Cir.· 1957-02-28 ·cited 16×
• Porter v. Bennison
  180 F.2d 523· 10th Cir.· 1950-03-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction because the claims primarily involved state probate matters, not federal law, and diversity jurisdiction was not properly established for such claims.
• After v. United States
  766 F.2d 347· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-27 ·cited 15×
  The court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review tribal resolutions interpreting tribal law and that appellants failed to exhaust administrative remedies regarding BIA actions. Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 failed due to the inability of a tribal council to conspire
• Mass. State Pharm. Ass'n v. Fed. Prescription Serv., Inc.
  431 F.2d 130· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-13 ·cited 15×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish the requisite $10,000 jurisdictional amount, either individually or through aggregation, to support federal jurisdiction.
• Heriberto Morales v. Yeutter
  952 F.2d 954· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Department of Agriculture's regulation excluding sod from the Seasonal Agricultural Worker (SAW) amnesty program was not arbitrary and capricious, and therefore valid.
• Hydrostorage, Inc. v. N. Cal. Boilermakers Local Joint Apprenticeship Comm.
  891 F.2d 719· 9th Cir.· 1989-12-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that the administrative order was preempted by ERISA because the apprenticeship standards and fund constituted an employee welfare benefit plan.
• Shiffler v. The Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF the United States
  838 F.2d 78· 3d Cir.· 1988-01-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction and granted summary judgment because the plaintiff's state law claims were preempted by ERISA and the denial of insurance benefits was not arbitrary and capricious.
• Helene Edwards v. McMAHON
  834 F.2d 796· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-16 ·cited 14×
  The government's position was not substantially justified, and the award of attorneys' fees should have been affirmed or remanded.
• United Ass'n OF Journeymen & Apprentices OF the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Indus. OF the United States & Canada v. Bechtel Power Corp. & Ronald Weatherred
  834 F.2d 884· 10th Cir.· 1987-12-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that plaintiffs' state law blacklisting claims were not preempted by § 301 of the LMRA, and therefore the federal district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
• Nieves v. Col. Robert C. Deshler
  786 F.2d 445· 1st Cir.· 1986-03-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentality (NAFI) is a proper defendant under the FLSA, and the district court has jurisdiction over such claims, reversing the dismissal. It also held that FLSA cases are removable from state to federal court absent express statut
• Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Ferre
  636 F. Supp. 970· S.D. Fla.· 1985-08-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction over the defendant's counterclaim and that each count of the counterclaim failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Donovan
  713 F.2d 1243· 6th Cir.· 1983-08-12 ·cited 14×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to grant declaratory and injunctive relief against the Secretary of Labor regarding the Black Lung Benefits Act's application to railroads.
• Coastal Petroleum Co. v. U.S.S. Agri-Chemicals
  695 F.2d 1314· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing an injunction because federal question jurisdiction was absent and the injunction did not fall within exceptions to the anti-injunction statute.
• Jensen v. Farrell Lines, Inc.
  625 F.2d 379· 2d Cir.· 1980-05-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the employer's actions did not constitute state action, and therefore, the supervisors' First Amendment claim failed. Even assuming state action, the court found no constitutional right for supervisors to demand majority selection of their union.
• Broadbent v. Org. OF Am. States
  628 F.2d 27· D.C. Cir.· 1980-01-08 ·cited 14×
  The employment of internal administrative staff by an international organization is a non-commercial activity, and thus such organizations are immune from suit for disputes arising from this employment, absent a waiver.
• Rowe v. State OF Tenn.
  609 F.2d 259· 6th Cir.· 1979-11-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that actions of state administrators of a mixed federal and state program may be considered 'under color of state law' for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even if federal law also applies.
• Navajo Tribal Util. Auth. v. Ariz. Dep't OF Revenue
  608 F.2d 1228· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority's claims because 28 U.S.C. § 1362 does not apply to subordinate tribal entities, and other jurisdictional bases were barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1341.
• Clark v. Blackburn
  605 F.2d 163· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-24 ·cited 14×·via Federal Question
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional violations in the defendant's conviction and sentencing.
• Stanley L. Drennan, M.D. v. Patricia Harris (Successor to F. David Mathews)
  606 F.2d 846· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-04 ·cited 14×
  The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the physician's claim regarding Medicare overpayments and recoupment.
• Am. Ass'n OF Commodity Traders v. Dep't OF the Treas.
  598 F.2d 1233· 1st Cir.· 1979-05-31 ·cited 14×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, affirming the dismissal.
• Braniff Int'l, Inc. v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
  576 F.2d 1100· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the mere fact that a constitutional claim might be raised as a defense before a state administrative body does not, by itself, deprive a federal court of subject matter jurisdiction when injunctive and declaratory relief are sought based on the unconstitutiona
• Reich v. City OF Freeport
  527 F.2d 666· 7th Cir.· 1975-12-24 ·cited 14×
  A former police officer lacks standing to challenge municipal ordinances as a citizen or taxpayer, and his claims regarding his discharge are barred by res judicata due to prior state court determination.
• Johnson v. The Lower Elwha Tribal Cmty. OF the Lower Elwha Indian Reservation
  484 F.2d 200· 9th Cir.· 1973-09-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under the Indian Civil Rights Act and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4) to hear claims of due process violations by an Indian tribe.
• Wallach v. City OF Pagedale
  376 F.2d 671· 8th Cir.· 1967-05-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish federal jurisdiction, and the trial court correctly dismissed the action without prejudice.
• Harold C. Ackert for the benefit of Laura B. Smith v. Honorable Frederick van Pelt Bryan
  299 F.2d 65· 2d Cir.· 1962-01-03 ·cited 14×
  The court denied a petition for mandamus seeking to stay a transfer of venue, finding that the transferee court must assume jurisdiction to consider the substantial question of Investment Company Act applicability, despite doubts.
• Wooten v. Bomar
  267 F.2d 900· 6th Cir.· 1959-06-17 ·cited 14×·via Federal Question
  The court held that a federal court may not grant habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner who has not exhausted available state remedies, including state habeas corpus proceedings.
• Prensa Insular de Puerto RICO, Inc. v. People of Puerto RICO
  189 F.2d 1019· 1st Cir.· 1951-06-07 ·cited 14×·via Federal Question
  A federal question essential to appellate jurisdiction must be raised and considered by the lower court before a motion for reconsideration, and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal to confer jurisdiction.
• N. Star Cap. Acquisitions, LLC v. Krig
  611 F. Supp. 2d 1324· M.D. Fla.· 2009-04-21 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the litigation privilege does not apply to the specific conduct at issue and that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding violations of the FDCPA and FCCPA, precluding summary judgment.
• Shell Oil Co. v. Altina Assocs., Inc.
  866 F. Supp. 536· M.D. Fla.· 1994-07-19 ·cited 13×
  The court held that federal courts have jurisdiction over franchisor actions under the PMPA, and granted a preliminary injunction because the franchisor demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
• Altheus Richardson v. United Steelworkers OF Am.
  864 F.2d 1162· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-06 ·cited 13×
  A state law claim alleging a union breached its duty to advise employees of employer's right to replace striking workers is completely preempted by the federal duty of fair representation under the NLRA, allowing removal to federal court and triggering the six-month statute of li
• Hossein A. Salehi v. Dist. Dir.
  796 F.2d 1286· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-16 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the aliens' claims challenging administrative actions and seeking asylum, as these claims were not direct attacks on their final deportation orders.
• Tyler v. Mmes. Pasqua & Toloso
  748 F.2d 283· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-10 ·cited 13×
  The Food Stamp Act does not create a private cause of action for expedited service, nor is such a claim independently actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Heckler
  721 F.2d 431· 3d Cir.· 1983-11-16 ·cited 13×
  The court held that federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review the constitutional challenge, and that the plaintiff has standing, but ultimately affirmed the dismissal because the plaintiff is not entitled to relief on the merits.
• Fla. Nursing Home Ass'n v. Page
  616 F.2d 1355· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-16 ·cited 13×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar prospective relief requiring a state agency to comply with federal law, and a state waives Eleventh Amendment immunity by contracting to abide by federal laws applicable to a federal program.
• Westmoreland Hosp. Ass'n v. Blue Cross OF Western Pennsylvania
  605 F.2d 119· 3d Cir.· 1979-09-10 ·cited 13×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  Federal question jurisdiction exists if the complaint, on its face, requires interpretation of federal statutes or regulations, even if state law claims are also present.
• Payne v. Gov't OF the Dist. OF Columbia
  D.D.C.· 1977-06-07 ·cited 13×
  The court, in a special concurrence, notes that the monetary value of the rights allegedly violated may not meet the jurisdictional amount and directs the trial court to consider this and other issues arising from a recent amendment to the jurisdictional statute.
• Dickson v. Mrs. C. O. Edwards
  293 F.2d 211· 5th Cir.· 1961-01-13 ·cited 13×
• Schleider v. GVDB Operations, LLC
  121 F.4th 149· 11th Cir.· 2024-10-31 ·cited 12×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's remand of a negligence lawsuit to state court, holding that an assisted living facility's failure to prevent COVID-19 spread did not implicate federal question jurisdiction under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Ac
• Nat'l Kidney Patients Ass'n v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  958 F.2d 1127· D.C. Cir.· 1992-03-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Social Security Act, which governs Medicare appeals.
• United States v. Tabor Court Realty Corp.
  943 F.2d 335· 3d Cir.· 1991-09-05 ·cited 12×
  The Third Circuit held that Carrier's failure to file a separate notice of appeal did not preclude the court from considering the validity of the assignment, as the issue was inextricably intertwined with Linde's appeal and the court's prior ruling.
• Kidder v. Maxus Energy Corp. & Maxus Corporate Co.
  925 F.2d 556· 2d Cir.· 1991-02-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court properly declared Maxus Energy and Maxus Corporate could not assert claims under the 1934 Act, but erred in exercising pendent jurisdiction over state law claims and in the scope of the injunction.
• Greater Detroit Res. Recovery Auth. & Combustion Eng'g v. The United States Env't Prot. Agency
  916 F.2d 317· 6th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 12×
  The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying Clean Air Act action, and therefore could not award attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
• Weller v. Dep't OF Soc. Servs. FOR the City OF Baltimore
  901 F.2d 387· 4th Cir.· 1990-04-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while most of the plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the complaint sufficiently alleged a procedural due process violation regarding the transfer of child custody without a hearing to warrant further factual inquiry.
• Judybill Osceola v. Fla. Dep't OF Revenue
  893 F.2d 1231· 11th Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 12×
  The Tax Injunction Act bars individual Indians from bringing federal court actions to challenge state sales taxes, as Florida provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy in its state courts.
• In re Hall's Motor Transit Co.
  889 F.2d 520· 3d Cir.· 1989-11-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court and district court correctly determined they lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the dispute over zoning enforcement was a non-core, non-related proceeding that did not affect the debtor's estate.
• Watson v. Estelle
  886 F.2d 1093· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-21 ·cited 12×·via Federal Question
  The court held that the application of a later amendment to California's Determinate Sentencing Law, which allowed for parole hearings every three years instead of annually, did not violate the ex post facto clause because the law in effect at the time of the offense did not prov
• Walden v. Bartlett
  840 F.2d 771· 10th Cir.· 1988-03-01 ·cited 12×
  The Feres doctrine bars damage claims by military personnel for injuries incident to service, but does not bar claims for injunctive or declaratory relief.