Mandamus Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1361)

153 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Carter v. Seamans
  411 F.2d 767· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-08 ·cited 123×
  The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the district court correctly declined jurisdiction because the plaintiff had an adequate remedy in the Court of Claims for his claims exceeding $10,000.
• Ellis v. Blum
  643 F.2d 68· 2d Cir.· 1981-02-18 ·cited 108×
  The court held that the Federal Question Jurisdictional Amendments Act of 1980 mandates reversal and remand, and that mandamus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 is available to review the Secretary's procedures.
• White v. Mathews
  559 F.2d 852· 2d Cir.· 1977-07-18 ·cited 97×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to order the Social Security Administration to reduce unreasonable delays in adjudicating disability claims, and that the order for prospective payments was an appropriate equitable remedy.
• Springdale Convalescent Ctr. v. Mathews
  545 F.2d 943· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-20 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction but erred in finding the Secretary's regulation unconstitutional, as the Secretary has statutory authority to recapture excess accelerated depreciation payments.
• Langevin v. Chenango Court, Inc.
  447 F.2d 296· 2d Cir.· 1971-07-23 ·cited 78×
  The court held that tenants in FHA-assisted housing projects are entitled to a fair administrative hearing before rent increases are approved, as a matter of due process.
• Ass'n of Am. Med. Colleges v. Califano
  569 F.2d 101· D.C. Cir.· 1977-12-01 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the Association of American Medical Colleges failed to establish federal-court jurisdiction because it did not pursue the Medicare Act's remedial administrative procedures, and Section 205(h) of the Social Security Act, incorporated into Medicare, bars federal
• Frost v. Caspar Weinberger
  515 F.2d 57· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-17 ·cited 71×
  The court held that due process does not require a full evidentiary hearing before reducing Social Security survivor benefits, as the private interest is less severe than termination and other government assistance may be available.
• Sheehan v. Army & AIR Force Exch. Serv.
  619 F.2d 1132· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-27 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over Sheehan's wrongful discharge claim against AAFES, based on the Tucker Act for monetary relief and federal question jurisdiction combined with the Administrative Procedure Act for nonmonetary relief.
• Powderly v. Schweiker
  704 F.2d 1092· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-26 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the bank's debiting of the appellant's account was not an action attributable to the federal government, thus no due process violation occurred.
• Est. of Arthur K. Watson v. Blumenthal
  586 F.2d 925· 2d Cir.· 1978-10-30 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the claim was primarily contractual and thus exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, and that the 1976 APA amendments did not override this limitation.
• Elliott v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  564 F.2d 1219· 9th Cir.· 1977-07-01 ·cited 65×
  The court held that Social Security beneficiaries are entitled to a pre-recoupment hearing for waiver claims, but not necessarily for reconsideration claims unless credibility is at issue. Mandamus jurisdiction was proper.
• Jarrett v. Hon. Stanley Resor
  426 F.2d 213· 9th Cir.· 1970-01-23 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, as the plaintiff was not in custody within the territorial jurisdiction of the court for habeas corpus purposes, and the action could not be construed as a mandamus action.
• Martinez v. Elliot L. Richardson
  472 F.2d 1121· 10th Cir.· 1973-01-29 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the district court's final judgment was ambiguous and required clarification regarding the dismissal of claims and the retention of jurisdiction for certain plaintiffs. It also found that the district court had jurisdiction despite the lack of explicit finding
• City OF NEW York v. Heckler
  742 F.2d 729· 2d Cir.· 1984-08-27 ·cited 58×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that it had jurisdiction under § 405(g) and § 1361 to adjudicate the class members' challenge to the SSA's disability determination procedure and to award relief, including interim benefits.
• City OF Milwaukee v. Saxbe
  546 F.2d 693· 7th Cir.· 1976-11-12 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the City of Milwaukee lacked standing to sue the Attorney General for discriminatory enforcement of civil rights laws and that the district court erred in finding subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
• Cortright v. Resor
  447 F.2d 245· 2d Cir.· 1971-08-20 ·cited 50×
  The court held that while courts must be scrupulous not to interfere with legitimate military matters, the exercise of First Amendment rights by service members is not exclusively an Army matter and may warrant judicial intervention.
• Parks v. United States Internal Revenue Serv.
  618 F.2d 677· 10th Cir.· 1980-03-27 ·cited 49×
  The court held that employees may maintain a civil action under the Privacy Act for unauthorized disclosure of personnel files used for soliciting bond purchases, and that allegations of psychological harm constitute an adverse effect sufficient for a damages claim.
• Jones v. Alexander
  609 F.2d 778· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-10 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the Secretary of the Army properly remedied the defect in the 1975 promotion selection board by convening a relook board, and that the plaintiff's nonselection by these boards constituted the necessary two pass overs for release from active duty.
• Cervoni v. Secretary OF Health
  581 F.2d 1010· 1st Cir.· 1978-06-27 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff physician did not possess a protected property interest in continued reimbursement under Part B of the Medicare Act and therefore had no colorable du
• Johnson v. Smith
  696 F.2d 1334· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-03 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the government's failure to present a rational reason for denying sentence credit to a pre-sentence detainee, who was concededly held under conditions identical to post-sentence detainees, constituted a denial of equal protection.
• Smith v. Grimm
  534 F.2d 1346· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-13 ·cited 44×
  The court held that there was no valid federal jurisdictional basis for the lawsuit, as the dispute was primarily a state law contract issue and not a substantial federal question or a proper case for mandamus.
• King v. United States
  492 F.2d 1337· 7th Cir.· 1974-03-13 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the Administrative Procedure Act requires the U.S. Parole Board to provide a brief statement of the grounds for denying parole on a written application.
• Walker v. Olin G. Blackwell
  360 F.2d 66· 5th Cir.· 1966-04-07 ·cited 44×
  The dissenting judge holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to treat the petitions as brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and that mandamus is inapplicable to prison administration matters.
• 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.
• 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.
• Schatten v. United States: Gen. Leonard Chapman
  419 F.2d 187· 6th Cir.· 1969-11-28 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court should have treated the petition as a mandamus action and ensured the Marine Corps followed its own regulations and procedures for reviewing the reservist's absences.
• 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.
• 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.
• Mattern v. Mathews
  582 F.2d 248· 3d Cir.· 1978-06-30 ·cited 33×
  The court held that due process requires a pre-recoupment oral hearing for "waiver" cases under section 204(b) of the Social Security Act, but a post-recoupment hearing is sufficient for "reconsideration" cases.
• Auckland Holmes v. United States Bd. OF Parole & United States Bureau of Prisons
  541 F.2d 1243· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-10 ·cited 32×
  A federal prisoner is entitled to procedural due process before being classified as a "Special Offender" because this designation significantly impacts opportunities for parole, furlough, and transfer, constituting a "grievous loss."
• Winnie Mae Knuckles v. Caspar Weinberger
  511 F.2d 1221· 9th Cir.· 1975-01-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction, as the issues raised must be determined by the trial court.
• Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc. v. Califano
  571 F.2d 58· 1st Cir.· 1978-02-23 ·cited 31×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) from issuing licenses, as the dispute was primarily a contract claim falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.
• Dietsch v. Schweiker
  700 F.2d 865· 2d Cir.· 1983-02-14 ·cited 30×
  A request for review of an administrative law judge's decision under the Social Security Act is considered timely filed if it is mailed within the 60-day period, even if postmarked later, based on the agency's own communications equating mailing with filing.
• Freeman H. Ringer v. Schweiker
  684 F.2d 643· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that plaintiffs' claims for procedural relief were properly brought under federal question and mandamus statutes, and that their substantive claims for benefits were properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) due to exceptions to the exhaustion requirement. The dist
• Paterson v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  644 F.2d 521· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is the exclusive remedy for age discrimination claims by federal employees, but the plaintiff should have an opportunity to prove jurisdiction regarding the ADEA claim.
• Workman v. Mitchell
  502 F.2d 1201· 9th Cir.· 1974-08-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to order compliance with due process requirements in prison disciplinary proceedings and that plaintiffs had standing to represent a class of prisoners. The court also held that the Morrissey-Gagnon st
• J. C. Penney Co., Inc. v. The United States Treas. Dep't
  439 F.2d 63· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Customs Court has exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to administrative decisions involving customs laws, including constitutional issues.
• Hadley Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Schweiker
  689 F.2d 905· 10th Cir.· 1982-09-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) bars federal question jurisdiction for Medicare providers challenging the Malpractice Rule, and that mandamus relief was not appropriate. However, the court vacated the dismissal of Medicaid providers' claims due to a recent statutory change
• Rena Watters v. Harris
  656 F.2d 234· 7th Cir.· 1980-06-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that refusals to extend administrative deadlines for requesting a hearing are not reviewable under Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, and a constitutional claim exception does not apply here.
• Weslie C. Haneke v. Secretary of Health
  535 F.2d 1291· D.C. Cir.· 1976-05-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Civil Service Commission must investigate claims of improper classification when an employee alleges doing identical work to others classified differently, as refusing to do so violates the principle of equal pay for substantially equal work.
• B. B. Adams Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  501 F.2d 176· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the district court's order was not a final, appealable order under Rule 54(b).
• Belles v. Schweiker
  720 F.2d 509· 8th Cir.· 1983-11-04 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and that the plaintiff's claim was not moot, reversing the dismissal.
• Sammie Blankenship v. Sec'y OF HEW & the Dep't of HEW
  587 F.2d 329· 6th Cir.· 1978-11-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while unreasonable delays in scheduling Social Security hearings violate statutory mandates, a judicially imposed 90-day deadline is inappropriate; instead, the Secretary must promulgate regulations establishing reasonable time limits.
• Mattern v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  519 F.2d 150· 3d Cir.· 1975-06-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare's procedure for recouping social security overpayments, which did not afford an oral hearing prior to the adjustment of benefits, violated due process. The court also affirmed the district court's certification of
• Davis Assocs., Inc. v. Sec'y, Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev., & Dover Hous. Auth.
  498 F.2d 385· 1st Cir.· 1974-06-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the agency's decision to reject a bid for a housing contract was committed to agency discretion and therefore not subject to judicial review under the APA, nor was there a mandatory duty to award the contract for mandamus relief.
• Liberation News Serv. v. Eastland
  426 F.2d 1379· 2d Cir.· 1970-05-07 ·cited 25×
  The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) does not apply to members of Congress or their employees, thus the district court correctly dismissed the action against them for lack of jurisdiction.
• DE LAO v. Califano
  560 F.2d 1384· 9th Cir.· 1977-09-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' property interest in presumptive disability benefits terminated at the end of 1974, and sovereign immunity bars recovery of retroactive benefits for the period after that date.
• SUN Enters., Ltd. v. Train
  532 F.2d 280· 2d Cir.· 1976-03-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that challenges to the Administrator's action in issuing an NPDES permit are exclusively reviewable in the court of appeals under § 509(b)(1) of the Water Act, and that such petitions are subject to a 90-day statute of limitations.
• 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.
• A. L. Rowan & SON v. Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  611 F.2d 997· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a contract claim exceeding $10,000 must be transferred to the Court of Claims, and that related unjust enrichment claims arising from the same transaction should also be transferred in the interest of justice.