enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. 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 ...

  3. 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).

  4. 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 ...

  5. The question raised was whether the federal district courts have original federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 [2] when a claim arises out of a federal statute that has not specifically granted a private right to a cause of action. The case considered several different tests to determine when a case is covered under original ...

  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. List of pending United States Supreme Court cases - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pending_United...

    Case Docket no. Question(s) presented Certiorari granted Oral argument Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra: 23-715: Whether the phrase "entitled ... to benefits," used twice in the same sentence of the Medicare Act, means the same thing for Medicare part A and Supplemental Social Security benefits, such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not ...

  8. Concurrent jurisdiction - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_jurisdiction

    Different countries can also share concurrent jurisdiction over a case, where different countries have authority over the parties or events giving rise to the cause of action. 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.

  9. List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 28

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    Supreme Court of the United States Established March 4, 1789 ; 235 years ago (1789-03-04) Location Washington, D.C. Coordinates Composition method Presidential nomination with Senate confirmation Authorised by Constitution of the United States, Art. III, § 1 Judge term length life tenure, subject to impeachment and removal Number of positions 9 (by statute) Website supremecourt.gov This ...