Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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 Erie case involved a fundamental question of federalism and the jurisdiction of federal courts in the United States. In 1789, the Congress passed a law still in effect today called the Rules of Decision Act (28 U.S.C. § 1652), which states that the laws of a state furnish the rules of decision for a federal court sitting in that state.
But standing in federal court is a question of federal law, not state law. No matter its reasons, the fact that a State thinks a private party should have standing to seek relief for a generalized grievance cannot override this Court's settled law to the contrary.
In cases involving an ambassador or high ranking minister or in cases between two or more states, the Supreme Court has original, trial court jurisdiction. In most all other cases, the Supreme ...
The typical case involving a certified question involves a Federal court, which because of diversity, supplemental, or removal jurisdiction is presented with a question of state law. In these situations, the Erie doctrine [ 8 ] requires the Federal court that acquires jurisdiction over cases governed in part by state law to apply the ...
If a case is originally filed in a state court, and the requirements for federal jurisdiction are met (diversity and amount in controversy, the case involves a federal question, or a supplemental jurisdiction exists), the defendant (and only the defendant) may remove the case to a federal court. A case cannot be removed to a state court. To ...
Pages in category "United States federal question jurisdiction case law" The following 9 pages are in this category, out of 9 total. This list may not reflect recent changes .
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 plaintiff's anticipation that the defendant would raise a federal statute as a defense.