enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grable_&_Sons_Metal...

    28 u.s.c. § 1331 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).

  3. Concurrent jurisdiction - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_jurisdiction

    Print/export Download as PDF; ... Title 28 of the United States Code, sections 1331 & 1332 give federal courts concurrent jurisdiction with the state courts over ...

  4. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisville_&_Nashville...

    25 Stat. 434, c. 866 (then-current federal question jurisdiction statute; current analogue 28 U.S.C. § 1331) Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Mottley , 211 U.S. 149 (1908), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that under the existing statutory scheme, federal question jurisdiction could not be predicated on a ...

  5. Federal question jurisdiction - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_question_jurisdiction

    Article III of the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear such cases, so long as the United States Congress passes a statute to that effect. However, when Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the newly created federal courts to hear such cases, it initially chose not to allow the lower federal courts to possess federal question jurisdiction for fear ...

  6. American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Well_Works_Co._v...

    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.

  7. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Sovereign...

    The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) is a United States law, codified at Title 28, §§ 1330, 1332, 1391(f), 1441(d), and 1602–1611 of the United States Code, that established criteria as to whether a foreign sovereign state (or its political subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities) is immune from the jurisdiction of the ...

  8. Title 28 of the United States Code - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_28_of_the_United...

    Title 28 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) is the portion of the United States Code (federal statutory law) that governs the federal judicial system. It is divided into six parts: Part I: Organization of Courts; Part II: Department of Justice; Part III: Court Officers and Employees; Part IV: Jurisdiction and Venue; Part V: Procedure

  9. Subject-matter jurisdiction - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-matter_jurisdiction

    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.