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

• Ne. Fed. Credit Union v. Neves
  837 F.2d 531· 1st Cir.· 1988-01-25 ·cited 12×
  The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the state was the real party in interest, precluding diversity, and the proposed amendment to assert federal question jurisdiction was merely a defensive maneuver against a state law action.
• Laurel C. Thomas v. Shipka
  818 F.2d 496· 6th Cir.· 1987-05-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the exclusive remedy for alleged constitutional violations by state officials, precluding direct constitutional claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It also affirmed that claims under § 1983 are governed by Ohio's one-year statute of limitations
• Spectrum Leasing Corp. v. United States
  764 F.2d 891· D.C. Cir.· 1985-06-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Spectrum's claim, seeking payment for goods under a government contract, is founded upon that contract and thus falls under the Tucker Act, not the Administrative Procedure Act, depriving the district court of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Thomas v. Barry
  729 F.2d 1469· D.C. Cir.· 1984-03-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while federal question jurisdiction exists under the Home Rule Act, the appellants are not entitled to retain federal civil service rights after the District of Columbia implemented its own personnel system.
• Begay v. Albers
  721 F.2d 1274· 10th Cir.· 1983-11-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and that forged deeds, even if approved by the Secretary of the Interior, do not terminate the trust status of Indian allotment lands if the allottee did not voluntarily consent to the conveyance.
• S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n OF the State OF Cal.
  716 F.2d 1285· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court's dismissal was proper because res judicata, based on the California Supreme Court's denial of review, barred Southern Pacific's preemption claim.
• Mich. Sav. & Loan League v. Francis
  683 F.2d 957· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-08 ·cited 12×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
• Exxon Corp. v. Hunt
  683 F.2d 69· 3d Cir.· 1982-06-30 ·cited 12×
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction over a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that a federal statute exempts plaintiffs from a state tax, as the federal issue constitutes a defense to a state law claim, and the Tax Injunction Act bars such suits when a plain, speedy, and efficien
• Baldwin v. Sears
  667 F.2d 458· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does not expressly prohibit removal of cases to federal court, and that summary judgment was appropriate as no genuine issues of material fact existed.
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. Marshall
  654 F.2d 294· 4th Cir.· 1981-07-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the agency should have been permitted to remand the cases for reconsideration of disclosure decisions in light of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, as the prior administrative decisions were based on unclear law and the agency requested a review under new guidelines.
• Sisk v. Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep't
  644 F.2d 1056· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint, as the allegations stated a federal question and a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Wheeler v. United States
  640 F.2d 1116· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a post-sentencing order restricting a prisoner's mail privileges, issued ex parte without notice, is equivalent to a sentence for the purpose of collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and that the district court had jurisdiction to hear the petition to vaca
• Millard Griffith v. Bell-Whitley Cmty. Action Agency
  614 F.2d 1102· 6th Cir.· 1980-01-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the district court had jurisdiction over the constitutional claims, the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the community action agency's actions did not constitute federal action. The court affirmed the dismissa
• Louise B. v. Aldo Coluatti
  606 F.2d 392· 3d Cir.· 1979-09-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the confidentiality and procedural due process claims, finding jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and pendent jurisdiction, and that the procedural due process claim was not foreclosed by Arnett v. Kennedy.
• Shands v. Tull
  602 F.2d 1156· 3d Cir.· 1979-07-24 ·cited 12×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the Social Security Act and its regulations require substantial, not total, compliance from states regarding welfare benefit appeal timelines, and New Jersey's performance met this standard.
• Housand v. Maxwell Heiman
  594 F.2d 923· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the plaintiff's constitutional claims were properly dismissed for lack of state action or bias, the case should be remanded to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint to assert diversity jurisdiction.
• Litton Indus., Inc. v. Colon
  587 F.2d 70· 1st Cir.· 1978-11-20 ·cited 12×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars a federal contract action against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its officials, and the allegations do not support a civil rights claim against the individual defendants.
• Aurora Gazmin Navarro v. Dist. Dir. OF the United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  574 F.2d 379· 7th Cir.· 1978-04-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff's failure to qualify as a registered nurse within two years constituted good and sufficient cause for the Attorney General to revoke her third preference status petition, and that the INS was not estopped from doing so.
• Rauch v. United Instruments, Inc.
  548 F.2d 452· 3d Cir.· 1976-12-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Federal Aviation Act does not imply a private cause of action for aircraft owners seeking to recover economic losses incurred due to compliance with air safety regulations.
• Fisher v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Chicago
  538 F.2d 1284· 7th Cir.· 1976-07-29 ·cited 12×
  A national banking association's interest rate on any loan is governed by the laws of the state where the bank is located, not where the borrower resides.
• The Memphis Am. Fed'n OF Teachers v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF Memphis City Schs.
  534 F.2d 699· 6th Cir.· 1976-04-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Board of Education's grant of exclusive privileges to the majority union did not violate the rival union's First Amendment rights and survived rational basis scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
• Seneca Nursing Home v. The Kan. State Bd. OF Soc. Welf.
  490 F.2d 1324· 10th Cir.· 1974-01-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the state's cost-plus payment formula for nursing home services was inconsistent with Kansas statutes prior to a 1971 amendment, and affirmed the trial court's declaratory judgment.
• N.J. Welf. Rights Org. v. Cahill
  483 F.2d 723· 3d Cir.· 1973-08-10 ·cited 12×
  New Jersey's administrative changes to its AFDC program, converting to a flat grant system based on state-wide averages, did not violate federal statutory requirements under Social Security Act § 402(a)(23).
• Stevens v. Rayfield Carey
  483 F.2d 188· 7th Cir.· 1973-08-08 ·cited 12×
  A federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a federal employee's claims against a union for expulsion and denial of due process, as neither Executive Order 10988 nor the Landrum-Griffin Act provides for such judicial remedies.
• Horton C. Weiss v. Waldon C. Burr
  484 F.2d 973· 9th Cir.· 1973-05-21 ·cited 12×·via Federal Question
  The majority erred in reversing the trial court's contempt finding based on a point not properly raised or briefed.
• Morgan v. Melchar
  442 F.2d 1082· 3d Cir.· 1971-05-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as pre-induction judicial review of Selective Service classifications is generally barred by statute.
• Eskridge v. Rhay
  345 F.2d 778· 9th Cir.· 1965-05-07 ·cited 12×·via Federal Question
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying habeas corpus relief because the petitioner deliberately and knowingly bypassed his state court remedies by dismissing his appeal.
• Midwestern Developments, Inc. v. The City OF Tulsa
  333 F.2d 1009· 10th Cir.· 1964-07-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the complaint stated a claim for relief under federal law, reversing the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Dicke v. Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes, Inc.
  304 F.2d 113· 10th Cir.· 1962-05-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma were not subject to suit in federal court absent express congressional consent, which was not provided by the relevant statute.
• Pembroke Huckins v. Duval Cnty.
  286 F.2d 46· 5th Cir.· 1960-12-28 ·cited 12×
  A claim does not arise under federal law merely because it involves a treaty or federal statute; the dispute must genuinely require construction or interpretation of that law to be resolved.
• Empire Pictures Distrib. Co., Inc. v. City OF Fort Worth
  273 F.2d 529· 5th Cir.· 1960-01-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that federal courts should not abstain from deciding cases involving the constitutionality of state or local laws, even when state law interpretation is involved, if the federal question is clear and the parties urge federal adjudication.
• Denton v. City of Carrollton
  235 F.2d 481· 5th Cir.· 1956-07-20 ·cited 12×
  The district court erred in declining jurisdiction; the exorbitant and punitive nature of the ordinance, coupled with uncertainty of tax recovery and risk of criminal penalties, warrants equitable relief.
• Hidalgo Cnty. Water Control & Improvement Dist. NO. 7 v. Wyatt C. Hedrick
  226 F.2d 1· 5th Cir.· 1955-09-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the treaty between the United States and Mexico did not create or protect individual water rights, nor did it alter existing state water law regarding distribution.
• Gordon v. Scudder
  163 F.2d 518· 9th Cir.· 1947-08-26 ·cited 12×·via Federal Question
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies because he failed to seek certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court after the California Supreme Court denied his habeas corpus petition without opinion.
• United States ex rel. Yvonne Kishell v. Turtle Mountain Hous. Auth.
  816 F.2d 1273· 8th Cir.· 1987-04-27 ·cited 11×
  The court held that federal courts must defer to tribal courts to determine jurisdiction over matters concerning tribal self-government, even when diversity jurisdiction requirements are met.
• Kulick v. Pocono Downs Racing Ass'n
  816 F.2d 895· 3d Cir.· 1987-04-23 ·cited 11×
  A district court cannot use its factual findings from a preliminary injunction hearing regarding state action as conclusive for determining its own subject matter jurisdiction.
• Homewood Prof'l Care Ctr., Ltd. v. Heckler
  764 F.2d 1242· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-12 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed Homewood's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Homewood failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).
• Quesada v. Dir., Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency
  577 F. Supp. 695· S.D. Fla.· 1983-12-29 ·cited 11×
  The court held that State Farm's homeowners policy excluded flood damage, but FEMA's flood insurance policy covered damage proximately caused by flooding from Tropical Storm Dennis, and FEMA waived the proof of loss requirement.
• Lister v. Comm'rs Court
  566 F.2d 490· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-17 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a special master who previously testified for a party should not have been appointed, and that plaintiffs failed to establish the jurisdictional amount for federal question jurisdiction, requiring remand.
• Alnoa G. Corp. v. City OF Houston
  563 F.2d 769· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-23 ·cited 11×
  Federal courts are barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1341 from enjoining state tax collection if a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts, and special street paving assessments are considered 'taxes' for this purpose.
• Miller v. Iverne R. Carter
  434 F.2d 824· 9th Cir.· 1970-10-09 ·cited 11×·via Federal Question
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's denial of the petition for habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner's counsel deliberately waived objections as a matter of trial strategy.
• Gen. Ry. Signal Co. v. Corcoran
  921 F.2d 700· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the SBA, as a federal agency, is not a citizen of any state for diversity purposes, thus failing the requirements of the federal interpleader statute (28 U.S.C. § 1335). Consequently, the injunction issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2361 must be vacated.
• Robinson v. Mich. Consol. GAS Co. Inc.
  918 F.2d 579· 6th Cir.· 1990-11-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court had removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1452, but erred in granting summary judgment to MichCon by improperly finding federal preemption and in failing to consider the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint against the Trustee.
• In re Thornburgh
  869 F.2d 1503· D.C. Cir.· 1989-03-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that mandamus is not appropriate because the district court's reference to special masters is not a clear usurpation of judicial power and the possibility of some valid relief cannot be confidently ruled out.
• Rocks v. City OF Philadelphia
  868 F.2d 644· 3d Cir.· 1989-03-01 ·cited 10×
  Taxpayers who are not directly injured and have no special relationship with the injured parties lack standing to assert equal protection claims based on municipal contracting requirements.
• Speedco v. Estes
  853 F.2d 909· Fed. Cir.· 1988-08-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the declaratory judgment complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the underlying threatened action was a state law contract claim, not a federal patent claim.
• Cosby v. Ward
  843 F.2d 967· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear claims that state administration of unemployment programs violates federal law or the Constitution, even if individual benefit determinations are subject to state review.
• Connors v. Tremont Mining Co.
  835 F.2d 1028· 3d Cir.· 1987-12-23 ·cited 10×
  The district court correctly held it lacked jurisdiction to entertain an action by trustees seeking reimbursement for medical benefits paid to black lung claimants because no final compensation orders had been obtained from the Department of Labor.
• Colonial Penn Grp., Inc. v. Colonial Deposit Co.
  834 F.2d 229· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a federal court lacks jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action filed by a party seeking to assert a federal defense against a state law claim, even if that defense involves federal law.
• United States v. State OF Wash.
  813 F.2d 1020· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Indian tribes' treaty interpretation claims do not give rise to a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and therefore do not support an award of attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.