Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court decision [1] involving the jurisdiction of the federal district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction). [2]
Congress eliminated the requirement in actions against the United States in 1976 and in all federal question cases in 1980. Therefore, a federal court can hear a federal question case even if no money is sought by the plaintiff. To meet the requirement of a case "arising under" federal law, the federal question must appear on the face of the ...
The enabling statute for diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, grants the district courts jurisdiction in a most types of actions, so long as they meet two basic conditions: Complete diversity requirement. No defendant is a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff. Amount in controversy requirement. The matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Plaintiff American Well Works Co. manufactured, sold, and held the patent to a particular type of pump, which was known to be the best on the market. The plaintiff sued defendant Layne & Bowler Co. on the grounds that defendant had maliciously libeled and slandered plaintiff's title to the pump by stating that the pump, and certain of its component parts, were infringements upon defendant's pump.
On November 14, 1972, the government filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, asserting jurisdiction under both 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (the federal question jurisdiction statute) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345, which grants the United States district courts with original jurisdiction over all civil actions in which the ...
Title 28 of the United States Code, sections 1331 & 1332 give federal courts concurrent jurisdiction with the state courts over federal question and diversity cases.
The Supreme Court found that his claim fell within the general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The question was accordingly not whether the CSRA precluded jurisdiction, but whether it divested the federal courts of the jurisdiction that is generally conferred by section 1331.
The Court considered three issues: whether federal-question jurisdiction existed in the case, whether the Eleventh Amendment barred federal lawsuits against school districts, and whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevented the district, as a government agency, from firing or otherwise disciplining an employee for constitutionally ...