Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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).
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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.
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.
Whether a plaintiff can state a claim by alleging that a plan fiduciary engaged in a transaction constituting a furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest, as proscribed by , or whether a plaintiff must plead and prove additional elements and facts not contained in the provision’s text.
The U.S. Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453, 1711–15, expanded federal subject-matter jurisdiction over many large class action lawsuits and mass actions in the United States. The bill was the first major piece of legislation of the second term of the Bush Administration.