
	Where results make sense

Topic: Federal question jurisdiction

In the News (Tue 14 Feb 12)

EXECUTIVE POWER

Iran

ANALYSIS

Pakistan

Family compact

	Federal question jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Federal question jurisdiction is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
		Unlike diversity jurisdiction, which is based on the parties coming from different states, federal question jurisdiction no longer has any amount in controversy requirement - Congress eliminated this requirement in actions against the United States in 1976, and in all federal question cases in 1980.
		There has been considerable dispute over what constitutes a "federal question" in these circumstances, but it is now settled law that the plaintiff cannot seek the jurisdiction of a federal court merely because it anticipates that the defendant is going to raise a defense based on the Constitution, or on a federal statute.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Federal_question_jurisdiction (407 words)

	The Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts - Understanding the Federal Courts (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		This means that federal judges may interpret the law only through the resolution of actual legal disputes, referred to in Article III of the Constitution as "Cases or Controversies." A court cannot attempt to correct a problem on its own initiative, or to answer a hypothetical legal question.
		Although the details of the complex web of federal jurisdiction that Congress has given the federal courts is beyond the scope of this brief guide, it is important to understand that there are two main sources of the cases coming before the federal courts: "federal question" jurisdiction, and "diversity" jurisdiction.
		Federal courts also have jurisdiction over all bankruptcy matters, which Congress has determined should be addressed in federal courts rather than the state courts.
	www.uscourts.gov /understand02/content_4_0.html (661 words)

	[No title]
		Federal legislation was deemed necessary because telemarketers could avoid state legislation by engaging in interstate operations, not because Congress recognized a significant federal interest deserving of protection in federal courts.
		But section 227(b)(3) says nothing about the jurisdiction of the federal district courts; instead, it says merely that an action under that provision "may" be brought in an appropriate state court "if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of" that state.
		In light of the longstanding and explicit grant of federal question jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. S 1331, I would instead conclude that a divestment of district court jurisdiction should be as reluctantly found as a divestment of state court jurisdiction.
	vls.law.vill.edu /locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1975p.txt (5443 words)

	[No title]
		In this appeal, we hold that in the Virgin Islands, unless an independent basis for federal jurisdiction exists, a suit to confirm or vacate an arbitrator's award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act must be brought in the Territorial Court, not in the District Court of the Virgin Islands.
		Moreover, the fact that a defense based on federal law will be raised does not create jurisdiction in the federal courts unless the case falls within that small category where the governing federal statute preempts the field and was clearly intended to support removal jurisdiction.
		Federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the Arbitration Act.
	vls.law.vill.edu /locator/3d/June1994/94a0753p.txt (2968 words)

	FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III: Annotations pg. 14 of 25
		Development of Federal Question Jurisdiction.--Almost from the beginning, the Convention demonstrated an intent to create ''federal question'' jurisdiction in the federal courts with regard to federal laws; 649 such cases involving the Constitution and treaties were added fairly late in the Convention as floor amendments.
		Pendent Jurisdiction.--Once jurisdiction has been acquired through allegation of a federal question not plainly wanting in substance, 700 a federal court may decide any issue necessary to the disposition of a case, notwithstanding that other non-federal questions of fact and law may be involved therein.
		With regard to the second question, in order to preclude Supreme Court review, the nonfederal ground must be broad enough, without reference to the federal question, to sustain the state court judgment, 731 the nonfederal ground must be independent of the federal question, 732 and the nonfederal ground must be a tenable one.
	caselaw.lp.findlaw.com /data/constitution/article03/14.html (5544 words)

	SSRN-Counterclaims, the Well-Pleaded Complaint, and Federal Jurisdiction by Christopher Cotropia
		Federal Circuit jurisdiction over such cases made sense, considering the Federal Circuit was created by Congress to be the exclusive venue for patent appeals.
		Such a discussion is needed, considering that regional circuit courts and district courts, before and after Holmes, have had to determine the proper scope of federal question jurisdiction in cases where the only federal law claim is presented in a counterclaim.
		The Article evaluates the well-pleaded complaint rules impact on a federal district court's original federal question jurisdiction and removal jurisdiction over cases where the only federal law claim is presented in a counterclaim.
	papers.ssrn.com /sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=533125 (559 words)

	Subject Matter Jurisdiction @ lawschoolhelp.com
		Subject matter jurisdiction (as opposed to personal jurisdiction) refers to the question of whether a particular court has the power or competence to decide the kind of controversy that is involved.
		Federal subject matter jurisdiction exists in cases where the opposing parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interests and costs.
		Generally, it is invoked when a plaintiff brings a federal question claim against a nondiverse defendant and seeks to have a related state law claim against the same defendant adjudicated by the federal court as an incident to the federal claim.
	www.west.net /~smith/smjuris.htm (1659 words)

	Federal Court Concepts
		Jurisdiction is important because it limits the power of a court to hear certain cases.
		Federal Courts of Appeal can hear cases from any of the states in their region (except for the D.C. Circuit, which only hears cases from the District of Columbia).
		Federal law also authorizes federal courts to hear cases where the opposing parties are citizens of different states.
	www.catea.org /grade/legal/juris.html (1103 words)

	[No title]
		Recall that under §1367, if there is a federal question in the case, the court has jurisdiction over non-federal claims that are within the common nucleus of operative fact.
		Jurisdiction is provided over suits in which “an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the laws of nations or a treaty of the U.S.”.
		There’s no allegation of a violation of domestic federal law, or that the defendant did it in the U.S. The suit was brought against a former official of the Paraguayan government by a citizen of Paraguay, claiming they had been tortured in Paraguay.
	www.nvo.com /mikelaw/nss-folder/fedcts/FedCtsOct24.doc (2770 words)

	Removal of a State Adlaw Case to Federal Court - City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 US 156 (1997)
		The District Court consolidated the cases, exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and granted summary judgment for the City, ruling that the ordinances and the Commission's proceedings were consistent with the Federal and State Constitutions and that the Commission's findings were supported by the evidence and were not arbitrary and capricious.
		Because this is a federal question case, the relevant inquiry is not, as ICS submits, whether its state claims for on-the-record review of the Commission's decisions are "civil actions" within the "original jurisdiction" of a district court: The district court's original jurisdiction derives from ICS's federal claims, not its state law claims.
		Those doctrines embody the general notion that "federal courts may decline to exercise their jurisdiction, in otherwise exceptional circumstances, where denying a federal forum would clearly serve an important countervailing interest, for example where abstention is warranted by considerations of proper constitutional adjudication, regard for federal-state relations, or wise judicial administration." Quackenbush v.
	biotech.law.lsu.edu /cases/adlaw/chicago_v_surgeons.htm (9116 words)

	[No title]
		The statute in Osborn was not a federal question statute, it was a statute that said the federal courts have jurisdiction over a suit in which the federal bank is a party, regardless of whether there is a federal question.
		So long as there is a federal question, decided by the state court, which was necessary to the decision of the state court, then there is jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to hear it.
		Federal question jurisdiction The normal, and understandable assumption from a modern lawyer is that federal question jurisdiction is the most important head of power.
	www.nvo.com /mikelaw/nss-folder/civpro2/civpro2Mar11.doc (3024 words)

	Yale Law Journal \| Archive
		Traditional federal courts scholarship assumes that it was only with the post-Reconstruction advent of general federal question jurisdiction that the federal courts took on their role as primary guarantors of constitutional rights.
		This use of diversity jurisdiction also suggests that the federal courts' role in providing constitutional remedies should be seen as a more continuous, less crisis-driven development than traditional federal courts scholarship has supposed.
		Such remedy forcing, together with the federal courts' continued provision of similar remedies under their own jurisdictional grants, suggests that there was a common law baseline of remedies against official law abrogation.
	www.yale.edu /yalelj/107/107-1ab2.html (342 words)

	Carter v. Health Net of California (California 07/06/2004)
		For questions of jurisdiction over petitions invoking solely a state arbitration statute, therefore, the appropriate parallel cannot be to the statute that itself provides federal question jurisdiction.
		A clear jurisdictional principle has emerged from these cases: the presence of federal questions in an underlying arbitration is insufficient to provide an independent basis for federal question jurisdiction to review an arbitration award under the FAA.
		In Luong, we held that "a federal question for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction must be presented in a well-pleaded petition." 368 F.3d at 1111.
	www.assetprotectionbook.com /CA_Carter-HealthNet_2004.htm (3824 words)

	Ruling on Federal-Question Jurisdiction Opens Federal Courts to FAA § 4 Motions Dispute Resolution Journal - Find ...
		However, when that ground is federal question jurisdiction, the courts of appeals have not agreed on how to determine whether such jurisdiction exists.
		The 2nd Circuit ruled in 1996 that federal question jurisdiction does not exist for purposes of § 4 unless the petition for arbitration itself raises a federal question.
		The 4th Circuit ruled that a federal court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over a case when the controversy underlying the arbitration agreement presents a federal question.
	www.findarticles.com /p/articles/mi_qa3923/is_200502/ai_n13635353 (715 words)

	Study Aids: Question & Answer Series
		This time Woolf's suit against Austen is in federal court based on federal question jurisdiction, so for venue purposes it would be covered by 28 U.S.C. (b), but the applicable language is the same.
		Although generally speaking the federal pleading rules are quite forgiving, a plaintiff must sue for a cause of action that is recognized under the applicable substantive law.
		It therefore can form the basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Where federal question jurisdiction exists, the parties' citizenship and the amount in controversy are not relevant.
	www.lexisnexis.com /lawschool/study/qanda/civpro.asp (1024 words)

	02-8016 -- Nicodemus v. Union Pacific Corporation -- 03/14/2006
		Further, a plaintiff may not circumvent federal jurisdiction by omitting federal issues that are essential to his or her claim.
		For the federal issue will ultimately qualify for a federal forum only if federal jurisdiction is consistent with congressional judgment about the sound division of labor between state and federal courts governing the application of § 1331.
		Plaintiffs argue, however, that the federal issue only arises as a defense to their claims and thus it is an inappropriate basis on which to assume federal- question jurisdiction.
	www.kscourts.org /ca10/cases/2006/03/02-8016.htm (3565 words)

	02-8016 -- Nicodemus v. Union Pacific Corporation -- 02/13/2003
		Layne and Bowler Co., 241 U.S. Federal-question jurisdiction also exists, however, where "it appears that some substantial, disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded state claims." Franchise Tax Bd.
		Union Pacific also asserts that state courts might be hostile to railroads and that a federal court might be better equipped to "resolve [the] complex issues of federal statutory construction" present in this case.
		County of Oneida, N.Y. (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting the long-standing principle that federal courts must "narrowly apply[] the principles of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the well-pleaded complaint rule to possessory land actions brought in federal court.").
	www.kscourts.org /ca10/cases/2003/02/02-8016.htm (3234 words)

	Firm's claim for fees hangs on federal question jurisdiction - CCH® UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE News Story - 12/14/05
		The firm placed the funds in escrow and brought an action in federal court, seeking a declaration that it was entitled to fees.
		The Second Circuit raised the jurisdictional issue, sua sponte, because it believed that the ordinary mechanism for getting into federal court in matters involving the Social Security Administration, Act 205(g), was ``seemingly inapplicable'' because the law firm was not a ``party,'' per se, at the administrative level (as contemplated by 205(g)).
		The court left the door open, however, that general federal question jurisdiction might still be available although Act 205(h) forbids federal suits that have not been administratively reviewed first, the bar does not apply where there is no appropriate administrative forum, such as in this case.
	hr.cch.com /news/uiss/121405a.asp (852 words)

	USCA1 Opinion 05-1509
		He did not plead diversity jurisdiction although it was available – Maher is domiciled in Massachusetts while GSI is a Canadian corporation.
		Once in federal court, GSI moved for summary judgment, alleging that res judicata precluded Maher’s second suit, and the district court granted GSI’s motion.
		Maher argues, however, that his case is distinguishable from Kale because diversity jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint through the statement of the parties’ domiciles.
	www.ca1.uscourts.gov /cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1509.01A (1263 words)

	Lands Letter - 07/14/2005
		Removal to federal court is generally available for any civil action that is brought in a state court when a U.S. district court would have original jurisdiction over the action.
		even when the state action discloses a contested and substantial federal question, the exercise of federal jurisdiction is subject to a possible veto.
		For the federal issue will ultimately qualify for a federal forum only if federal jurisdiction is consistent with congressional judgment about the sound division of labor between state and federal courts governing the application of § 1331 .
	www.nbnnews.com /landsltr/issues/2005-07-14/4.html (343 words)

	Gregory P. Joseph Law Offices LLC \| Recent Articles (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		Diverse plaintiffs whose claims satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement may join their claims together, regardless of whether they are necessary parties under Rule 19. This is dictated by the general diversity statute, § 1332, and the supplemental jurisdiction statute is irrelevant.
		It is important to bear in mind the expansion of federal jurisdiction under Exxon Mobil and Grable are in effect discretionary. Although § 1367(a) is drafted in nominally mandatory terms (“shall have supplemental jurisdiction”), § 1367(c) provides four discretionary grounds for declining federal jurisdiction, the last of which consists of “in exceptional circumstances,...
		Similarly, Grable requires a discretionary determination by the district court as to whether assuming jurisdiction would disturb the congressionally-approved balance of state and federal judicial responsibilities, and CAFA certainly must be considered in striking that balance. But CAFA is content-neutral, and the essence of Grable jurisdiction is content-specific.
	www.josephnyc.com /FEDERALJURISDICTIONEXPANDED.shtml (702 words)

	Federal Question Problems (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		The Federal Safety Appliance Act specifies the type of brakes which are required on all trucks doing an interstate business.
		Claiming that the violation is evidence, perhaps rebuttable evidence of negligence, Smith sues ITO in the Federal District Court for damages.
		Assume that in question 2., the statute stated that if a violation of the federal statute was proven, any person suffering a loss as a result of the violation could bring a "suit for damage in a court of competent jurisdiction." Is there now federal question jurisdiction?
	www.law.missouri.edu /devine/fedq.htm (518 words)

	TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 949, July 30, 2004.
		First, a claim arises under federal law where there is complete preemption, which exists when federal law so completely sweeps away state law that any action brought under state law is transformed into a federal action.
		Second, a claim arises under federal law where a well-pleaded complaint establishes that the plaintiff's right to relief under state law necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.
		Judge Luttig continued that "It is one thing to provide that ``arising under´´ jurisdiction exists in that narrow class of cases where the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial federal question or Congress has preempted state court jurisdiction.
	www.techlawjournal.com /alert/2004/07/30.asp (3737 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)