28 U.S.C. § 1331

Law changed since Pub. L. 96-486 (Dec. 1, 1980) eliminated § 1331's remaining amount-in-controversy requirement, including for pending actions.

Section 1331(a)'s then-applicable $10,000 jurisdictional amount can be met by an employment claim involving an annual salary of $17,550.

Savage v. Kibbee · filed 1976-11-11(a)

The plaintiff earned an annual salary to $17,550 at the time of her termination in 1975. There is therefore no reason to believe that the $10,000 jurisdictional amount required under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) has not been met.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)’s then-applicable $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement could be met by the monetary value of a threatened legal career.

Ostrer v. Aronwald · filed 1977-06-21(a)

The Court believes that the value of that which is allegedly at stake — plaintiff’s career as an attorney — can be viewed in monetary terms and is sufficient to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement.

Law changed since Pub. L. 96-486 (Dec. 1, 1980) eliminated § 1331's amount-in-controversy requirement, including for pending civil actions.

Section 1331 required an amount in controversy exceeding $10,000 for this claim, and an alleged amount satisfied that requirement unless it was legally certain the claim was worth less.

Riley v. City of Minneapolis · filed 1977-09-19

It is well settled that jurisdictional amount, once alleged, is presumed present unless it can be shown to a legal certainty that plaintiff’s claim is actually for less than $10,000. ... It should be noted that jurisdictional amount is only required for plaintiffs action against the city which is founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1970).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331’s then-applicable $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied when the value of requested reinstatement exceeds $10,000.

McKnight v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority · filed 1977-10-04

The claim for reinstatement itself has a value in excess of $10,000, therefore, without regard to the other relief plaintiff requests. As a result, the amount in controversy necessary for jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim against SEPTA under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is present.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)’s then-applicable amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied by a good-faith allegation that the constitutional rights at issue are worth more than $10,000.

Citizens Council on Human Relations v. Buffalo Yacht Club · filed 1977-10-07(a)

The basic allegation that constitutional rights were violated in an amount exceeding $10,000 satisfies the jurisdictional requirements of section 1331(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a) required an adequately alleged amount in controversy for federal-question jurisdiction.

Housworth v. Glisson · filed 1978-06-14(a)

Moreover, the fact that the plaintiffs have inadequately alleged the amount in controversy for purposes of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) does not matter since jurisdiction is alternatively premised on 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331’s then-applicable amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied by the complaint’s allegation that more than $100,000 was at stake.

Doe v. Montana ex rel. Agency of the Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services · filed 1978-09-27

The motion to dismiss of Flathead County is denied. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... It is urged that damages in the amount of $10,000.00 are not shown. Plaintiff alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $100,000.00.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 1331’s then-applicable $10,000 threshold, a good-faith claim satisfies the amount requirement unless it is legally certain that the controversy is worth less.

Local Div. No. 714, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Greater Portland Transit District of Portland · filed 1978-11-15

Accordingly, to warrant dismissal of the complaint on jurisdictional amount grounds it would have to appear “to a legal certainty” that the amount in controversy actually does not exceed $10,000. Such is not the case here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under the then-applicable $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement, federal-question jurisdiction exists unless the court can say to a legal certainty that $10,000 or less is in controversy.

Rogers v. Dr. M. L. Brockette · filed 1979-02-02(a)

Since the federal government will not necessarily reimburse GISD for those expenses, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 1773(d), 1774, we cannot say “to a legal certainty,” St. Paul Mercury Indemn. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938), that $10,000 or less is in controversy. Thus, the district court had jurisdiction over GISD’s claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For declaratory or injunctive relief, Section 1331’s then-applicable amount-in-controversy requirement is measured by the value of the right the plaintiff seeks to protect.

Bailey v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Ottawa · filed 1979-04-11

In a suit seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, the value of the right sought to be protected determines the amount in controversy. ... In this case, the value of the promissory notes substantially exceeds $10,000. Jurisdiction therefore properly lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the court need not decide whether jurisdiction also lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1337.

Law changed since Pub. L. 85-554 (July 25, 1958) raised the § 1331 threshold from $3,000 to $10,000; Pub. L. 96-486 (Dec. 1, 1980) then eliminated the amount requirement.

Under the former version of section 1331, a plaintiff seeking prospective employment-related relief had to support the $3,000 jurisdictional amount with evidence or a reasonable forecast of sufficiently long future employment.

Powers v. Gold · filed 1953-05-19

Under the circumstances, this Court finds that plaintiff has failed to sustain his burden of showing by evidence or by forecast, that there are likely to be at least thirteen more years of such high activity at the Boston Naval Shipyard as to afford employment as a GS-4 supply clerk to an employee with preference rights to which plaintiff lays claim. From this finding, it follows that plaintiff has not brought a case involving the jurisdictional amount of $3,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under the former section 1331, a bare allegation that the amount in controversy exceeded $3,000 was insufficient to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Fischler v. McCarthy · filed 1954-01-06

As noted above, plaintiffs allege that jurisdiction of the court exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. They also allege that the “amount in controversy exceeds exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of $3,000.” But only this bare allegation is offered.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former amount requirement did not demand absolute certainty; a present probability that union expulsion would cause more than $3,000 in lost earnings was enough.

Al Friedman v. International Association of MacHinists · filed 1955-03-11

Absolute certainty of this value is not essential. ... Present probability that damages will exceed that sum is enough. ... We are accordingly of the opinion that the facts adduced on the value of the matter in controversy bring the case within the jurisdiction of the District Court.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 1331’s former amount requirement, an unchallenged formal allegation that more than $3,000 is in controversy establishes jurisdiction unless the complaint shows to a legal certainty that the threshold cannot be met.

Prince Heyward v. Public Housing Administration · filed 1956-11-30

The applicable rule with respect to the amount in controversy is relatively simple and is this: When a complaint contains a formal allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds $3,000 and is not traversed, such allegation is deemed sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the federal court, unless it appears to a legal certainty that the other allegations of the complaint so qualify or detract from it that it cannot fairly be said that jurisdiction appears on the face of the complaint.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under the former section 1331, a federal-question action involving less than $3,000 had to be dismissed for failure to satisfy the jurisdictional amount.

Jacobs v. Tawes · filed 1957-06-04

The amount in controversy in this case is $1,914.62, less than $3,000. This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under the former section 1331, the amount of taxes sought to be enjoined determined the amount in controversy and had to exceed $3,000 even in a three-judge case.

Donald H. Jacobs, Doing Business as the Jacobs Instrument Company v. J. Millard Tawes, Comptroller of the Treasury, Stat · filed 1957-12-26

It appears from the face of the complaint that the amount involved in the action is only $1,904.62 including penalties and interest; and where jurisdiction is based, as it must be here, not on some special statute, but upon the fact that the controversy arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the amount in controversy must exceed “the sum or value of $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. There can be no question but that the jurisdictional amount of $3,000 is a prerequisite to jurisdiction in the District Court where a court of three judges is required for the hearing of the case as well as in other cases.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under the former section 1331, a single plaintiff could aggregate properly joined federal statutory claims against one defendant to satisfy the $3,000 amount in controversy.

Tsavdaridis v. T. J. Stevenson & Co. · filed 1958-04-30

There is ample precedent for the aggregation of a single plaintiff’s claims against a single defendant in order to attain the jurisdictional amount. ... The aggregate of the two claims made by the plaintiff, which rest upon these specific statutes of the United States, amounts to more than $3,000.

Law changed since Pub. L. 96-486 (Dec. 1, 1980) eliminated § 1331's amount-in-controversy requirement, including for pending civil actions.

For § 1331's former amount requirement, each bridge user's expected toll payments during the litigation measured the controversy, and association members could not aggregate their separate claims.

Greater Hartford Free Bridge Ass'n v. Greater Hartford Bridge Authority · filed 1958-11-07

The amount of tolls expected to be paid by each plaintiff during the period of litigation is the measure here of amount in controversy. ... Other tollpayers may not by joining an association, aggregate the amount of their claims. ... There is no showing that any individual has an amount in controversy over $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

As then written, § 1331 granted jurisdiction when a cause arose under the Constitution or federal law and the amount sought exceeded $3,000.

Hoffman v. C. H. Halden, Dr. Donald E. Wair, Dr. G. F. Keller and Dr. F. Sydney Hansen · filed 1959-05-28

§ 1331 grants jurisdiction if the cause arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States and the prayer exceeds $3,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 1331 as then written, a federal-law action required more than $3,000 in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs.

Thelma M. Wade, as Administratrix of the Estate of Russell L. Smith, Deceased v. Dan Rogala, Doing Business as Rogala Fi · filed 1959-09-17

Accordingly, jurisdiction exists in the Federal District Court, if at all, by reason of the application of a law of the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which, at the time this action was brought, required that the matter in controversy exceed the sum or value of $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under the 1958 amendment to section 1331, a complaint alleging only that more than $3,000 was in controversy failed to satisfy the new $10,000 jurisdictional threshold.

Pacific Inter-Club Yacht Association v. Morris · filed 1960-04-11

At the outset it must be noted that there is no allegation in the complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.00. There is an allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds $3,-000. 00, but this is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. The complaint in this case was filed on October 21, 1959, so the required jurisdictional amount is fixed by Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as amended July 25, 1958.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under former § 1331, an action challenging federal officials’ authority under federal mineral-leasing law arose under federal law when it also met the jurisdictional-amount requirement.

Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Pierson · filed 1960-10-28

Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as the action arises under the laws of the United States and the controversy involves more than the required jurisdictional amount.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under former § 1331, an action arising under the Railway Labor Act satisfied federal-question jurisdiction when the amount in controversy exceeded the threshold in effect when the action began.

Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Butte, Anaconda & Pacific Railway Company · filed 1961-01-10

Jurisdiction, then and presently, exists because the action arises under the laws of the United States; viz. the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 151-163, and the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limit in force when the action was originally filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under former § 1331, a justiciable controversy involving a federal statute satisfied federal-question jurisdiction when the amount in controversy exceeded $10,000.

First National Bank in Billings v. First Bank Stock Corp. · filed 1961-04-06

Since a federal statute is involved, the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337. The amount in controversy far exceeds the minimum requirement of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs. I specifically find that a justiciable controversy exists between the plaintiffs and defendants on said Count.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under the former section 1331(a), federal questions did not establish jurisdiction unless the complaint also alleged the requisite amount in controversy.

Savini v. Sheriff of Nassau County · filed 1962-10-29(a)

Nor does the court have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) ... since the federal questions presented, if any, do not involve the requisite jurisdictional amount. The complaint is defective in that it fails to allege a “short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends”, Fed.R.Civ. P. 8(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under former § 1331, a plaintiff suing in a municipality’s right could amend the complaint to allege the jurisdictional amount, and an allegation of financial loss to the municipality was sufficient.

Blachman v. Erieview Corporation · filed 1962-12-19

Federal question jurisdiction is claimed to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff's motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653 to amend his complaint to allege the jurisdictional amount more fully is granted. Since under local law he sues in the right of the municipality, the amended allegation of financial loss to it appears to be sufficient.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under former § 1331, the jurisdictional amount did not require certainty; a present probability that the threatened loss would exceed the threshold was sufficient.

Cardinal Sporting Goods Co. v. Eagleton · filed 1963-01-11

The standard of proof of jurisdictional amount, however, does not require certainty of amount. ... Present probability that the loss will exceed the jurisdictional requisite will suffice.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a) historically required both more than $10,000 in controversy and a substantial federal question, so omission of the amount and assertion of an insubstantial constitutional claim could not establish jurisdiction.

Smith v. The State of California, Edmund G. Brown, Governor · filed 1964-09-09(a)

A possible statute is 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) which confers original jurisdiction on the district court in civil actions wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, and arises under the Constitution of the United States. ... The complaint does not allege the jurisdictional amount, (§ 1331(a)) or other jurisdictional facts (§ 1343(3) or (4)), but it does attempt to allege a claim for relief under the Constitution of the United States. ... We nevertheless affirm, because we are of the opinion that the district court was correct in holding that no substantial federal question is presented.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331’s former amount-in-controversy requirement, the value of the matter in controversy was measured by its monetary consequences to the parties, not the importance of the principle involved.

Yoder v. Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation · filed 1964-11-25

Thus the Commission has never suggested that matter is not one “arising under” federal law, but what it has consistently contended is that the “matter in controversy” does not meet the additional statutory requirement that it exceed “the sum or value of $10,000.” ... Thus, the value of the “matter in controversy” must be measured not by the importance of principle involved, but by its monetary consequences to the parties to the litigation. Here we conclude that the Tribes have not met one of the two essential requirements of the statute. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement, a quiet-title action is valued by the increase or decrease in the affected property's value resulting from the requested relief.

A. C. McKoy Inc., a Corporation v. Fred P. Schonwald, M. P. Craig, Seymour G. Hootkins and B. E. Oil Inc., a Corporation · filed 1965-02-16(a)

In our case the “matter in controversy” is the oil and gas lease. The value of the mineral interest is directly affected by the incidence of the oil and gas lease, and the object of the suit is to cancel the lease as a cloud on the title to the mineral interest. So, the amount in controversy is the diminished value of the mineral interest burden with the lease or the increased value without the lease.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 1331(a)'s former amount-in-controversy requirement, class members' claims could be aggregated only in a true class action.

Fuller v. Volk · filed 1965-09-30(a)

It is well-settled law that only in a true class action may the claims of each member of the class be aggregated in order to obtain the requisite jurisdictional amount in controversy.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 1331(a)'s former amount-in-controversy requirement, a tax case measured the amount by the tax owed rather than the value of the affected property.

Detroit Edison Co. v. East China Township School District No. 3 · filed 1965-11-05(a)

In an action involving a tax or assessment, the “matter in controversy” is the tax for which the plaintiff is liable. ... The applicable standard for jurisdictional amount under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) is to be determined under federal law, Horton v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Company, 367 U.S. 348, 352, 81 S.Ct. 1570, 6 L.Ed.2d 890 (1961).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement used the same jurisdictional threshold as Section 1332.

Robert v. Rafter v. Newark Insurance Company · filed 1966-01-20

We need not discuss appellant’s claim that a writ of attachment in some way is governed by constitutional limitations on search warrants, so that a federal question is involved, for the jurisdictional amount is the same whether the action is brought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331's former jurisdictional-amount requirement, a declaratory action may be valued by the right at issue and its value to either party.

STATE CHARTERED BANKS IN WASH. v. Peoples Nat. Bank of Wash. · filed 1966-06-01

While there may be some doubt whether the evidence clearly establishes the requisite amount by the “value-to-the-plaintiff” test, there is no doubt if we apply the “value-of-the-thing-to-be-accomplished-by-the-action” test. The latter test may relate to either party in the action; and in the court’s opinion the jurisdictional amount of $10,000 is clearly established by the record evidence, using that test.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement was not satisfied by a claim seeking only $92.89.

Carey v. Settle · filed 1966-08-09

The complaint obviously does not state an amount in controversy that meets the jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former requirements were not met when a complaint neither pleaded more than $10,000 in controversy nor presented a claim arising under federal law.

Jones v. Middlesex County Board of Elections · filed 1966-09-02

There is no jurisdiction afforded under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in this case because it has not been pleaded that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $10,000 and it appears conclusively that it does not arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A single plaintiff may aggregate all claims against one defendant to satisfy § 1331(a)'s former amount-in-controversy requirement.

DeLorenzo v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation · filed 1966-09-28(a)

A plaintiff may aggregate all his claims against a defendant to fulfill the Federal jurisdictional monetary requirement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former jurisdictional requirements were satisfied by a constitutional challenge involving more than $10,000 to a state wholesale-liquor licensing requirement affecting foreign commerce.

Epstein v. Lordi · filed 1966-12-14

General jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a matter in controversy exceeding $10,000.00, and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement, good-faith damage allegations satisfy jurisdiction unless it appears to a legal certainty that each plaintiff's claim is below the threshold.

Lang v. Colonial Pipeline Co. · filed 1966-12-29

We have before us for disposition the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the amount in controversy in respect to each plaintiff is less than $10,000, exclusive of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. … The test with respect to the motion before us is whether the plaintiffs have made their allegations of damages in good faith in an action for ejectment and trespass. On the basis of the testimony at the hearing and the affidavits submitted, we conclude that there is the requisite good faith and that the plaintiffs have met their burden. Furthermore, we cannot say that it appears to us to a “legal certainty” that the value in controversy is less than the jurisdictional amount.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331 historically required a federal question and more than $10,000 in controversy, but members' claims could be aggregated when the suit was maintainable as a class action under Rule 23.

Booth v. General Dynamics Corporation · filed 1967-01-25

Finally, section 1331 grants general jurisdiction over claims involving both a federal question and an amount in controversy in excess of $10,000. Any of plaintiff’s federal claims not covered by the “civil rights” statutes must therefore meet the jurisdictional requirements of section 1331. … A study of defendant’s challenges to the different bases of our federal jurisdiction leads us to conclude that, while we lack jurisdiction under the “civil rights” statutes, we have jurisdiction under section 1331. … The right to aggregate claims in a class suit depends on whether the suit is maintainable as a class action.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement was not satisfied by a claim worth $3,361.52.

Lombardi v. Zimany · filed 1967-01-30

The provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, upon which the plaintiff would also rely to support jurisdiction, are equally ineffective to that end by reason of the conceded non-involvement of the jurisdictional minimum required by that section.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy rule, an action seeking return and suppression of tax records could proceed after the complaint was amended to allege the required amount.

Birdsall v. United States · filed 1967-02-27(a)

This cause came on for hearing upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Injunction to prevent the Government’s use of the records and documents for the purpose of obtaining an indictment against the Plaintiffs. Jurisdiction of the Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). The Court granted Plaintiffs’ oral Motion to Amend Complaint to recite the amount in controversy required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A federal property-right claim outside § 1343(3) had to satisfy § 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement.

Howard v. Colbert Higgins, Sheriff, Murray County, Sulphur, Oklahoma · filed 1967-06-01

If the asserted claim can be said to arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States, jurisdiction must be found in 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the court correctly dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdictional amount.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement, a court would need findings that the plaintiff's monetary interest met the threshold when the pleaded governance right was not readily measurable.

Murphy v. Colonial Federal Savings And Loan Association · filed 1967-12-11

The question of jurisdictional amount is more difficult than the judge thought. For reasons indicated in the margin, if 28 U.S.C. § 1331 were the only source of federal jurisdiction, we should be obliged to remand for further findings, as we did in Wolff v. Selective Service Local Board No. 16, 372 F.2d 817, 826 (2 Cir. 1967), whether the requisite monetary interest could be shown.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement was not satisfied when a plaintiff failed to allege that more than $10,000 was in controversy.

Nieves v. United States · filed 1968-03-05

Jurisdiction under the general federal question provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1964), seems absent because plaintiff has failed to allege that the amount in controversy exceeds the required $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For injunctive relief under § 1331's former amount requirement, the amount in controversy was the value of the right to be protected or the wrong to be prevented.

Sheraga v. California · filed 1968-03-27

Plaintiff also seeks an injunction, but makes no allegation of the value of the right he seeks to protect. The value of the right is the test of jurisdiction. Since there is no indication that the value of the right .to be protected, or the wrong to be prevented, is worth’ over $10,000, this Court lacks jurisdiction in this action.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)'s former amount-in-controversy requirement may be measured using recoverable director fees, election expenses, and the value of the plaintiff's bank stock.

Twardzik v. Sepauley · filed 1968-07-09(a)

This reasoning is fallacious. If successful, the amount claimed to be recoverable might include director’s fees improperly paid by the bank to the six individual defendants; costs and expenses of the election having a suggested monetary value of $15,000. We will also accept the statement of plaintiff’s attorney that Twardzik is the owner of 103 shares of the Bank’s stock having an aggregate worth of $46,765. We therefore resolve, from the pleadings and averments taken together, that the jurisdictional amount is present.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A complaint alleging a federal question did not satisfy § 1331's former jurisdictional requirements unless it also alleged a sufficient amount in controversy.

Jones v. Freeman · filed 1968-08-28

While the claim alleges a "federal question," that is not sufficient. The complaint neither alleges the sufficient amount controversy to base jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1964 ed.); nor does it allege, alternatively, that this is a suit against the United States so that jurisdiction may be based on 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (a) (2) (1964 ed.).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A § 1331 claim had to be dismissed when it became legally certain during trial that the plaintiff was never entitled to recover the former jurisdictional amount.

The City of Boulder, a Colorado Municipal Corporation v. Eleanor B. Snyder, Paul D. Huntley, and Eileen Huntley · filed 1968-09-06

Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is improperly founded whenever it appears as a “legal certainty” that less than $10,000 is at issue in the controversy. St. Paul Indem. Co. v. Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283; P & S Constr. Co. v. Jensen, 10 Cir., 337 F.2d 160. Under these cases a plaintiff’s good faith in choosing the federal forum is vulnerable at any time during trial as well as prior thereto, and if it appears that a plaintiff never was entitled to recover the jurisdictional amount, and that his claim was therefore colorable for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction, the suit must be dismissed. The actual amount recovered is not determinative of the issue and is relevant only if it is probative thereof.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)'s former amount-in-controversy requirement barred a federal statutory claim worth only $334.10 even if the claim otherwise arose under federal law.

McCall v. Shapiro · filed 1968-10-18(a)

While the plaintiff’s contention that 42 U.S.C. § 407 expressly or by clear inference supervened the state’s power to apply the lump sum OASDI payment to diminish its AFDC payments may sufficiently assert a question which “arises under” federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a); cf. T. B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823, 826-828 (2d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 915, 85 S.Ct. 1534, 14 L.Ed.2d 435 (1965), it is obvious that her claim for $334.10 does not meet the amount required by the statute to be in controversy to confer jurisdiction upon this court.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)'s former requirements were satisfied by more than $10,000 in controversy and a federal-law question under the National Banking Act.

Jackson v. First National Bank of Cornelia · filed 1968-10-22(a)

Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) is based on the amount in controversy and the existence of a question of federal law under the National Banking Act, Title 12 U.S.Code.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)'s former amount-in-controversy requirement had to be alleged in the complaint, but the deficiency could be cured by amendment before dismissal.

Shellburne, Inc. v. New Castle County · filed 1968-11-04(a)

Actually it does not. The amended complaint fails to allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 exclusive of interest and costs. The discussion which follows will assume that an amendment to the complaint to correct this deficiency will be filed. Unless such corrective amendment to the complaint is filed within 15 days, the aspect of the claim under § 1331(a) will be dismissed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement, the court may consider pleadings, affidavits, and record evidence, and a salary loss exceeding $10,000 satisfies the threshold.

Rheingans v. Clark · filed 1968-11-18

The defendants next contend this court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, since the matter in controversy does not exceed the sum or value of $10,000. Yet, ... in determining whether a substantial claim exists for an amount which satisfies the statute, this court will look not only to the pleadings but to any submitted affidavits or evidence in the court record. … Since the difference between these two salaries exceeds $10,000, the plaintiff has satisfied the monetary jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy rule, each plaintiff's claim against each defendant had to satisfy the threshold, and injunctive claims were valued by the right to be protected.

Dodge v. Nakai · filed 1968-12-20

The jurisdictional amount requisite to the commencement of an action under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 must exist with respect to each plaintiffs claim for relief against each defendant. Where plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, the value of the matter in controversy is the value of the right to be protected.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331(a)'s former amount-in-controversy rule, a nonmonetary deferment could satisfy the threshold when there was a present probability its value would exceed $10,000.

Armendariz v. Hershey · filed 1969-02-05(a)

This is clearly a Federal question case, arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. While “ [i]t is difficult to understand * * * why there should ever be a monetary requirement in federal question cases,” the $10,000 requirement remains. Wright, Federal Courts § 32 (1963). It is that requirement in contest here. Although it is difficult to determine the pecuniary value of the I-S deferment to the Plaintiff, it is not so difficult that it “cannot be translated into terms of money.” Id. at § 33. Rather, the Court finds “there is a present probability that the value of the matter in controversy will exceed the jurisdictional amount.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For § 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement, the value of the right to practice a licensed profession could exceed $10,000.

MacK v. Florida State Board of Dentistry · filed 1969-03-20

The Court has jurisdiction both under the Federal Question Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, (the Court finding that the value of the nature of the right sought to be protected is in excess of $10,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs), and under the Civil Rights Jurisdiction Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1343(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement, individual public-housing tenants could not aggregate separate lease-based claims, so each tenant had to satisfy the $10,000 threshold.

Potrero Hill Community Action Committee, Etc. v. The Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco · filed 1969-04-24

Each project resident holds his own lease which confers benefits on the one' hand and prescribes duties and obligations on the other, and these rights and obligations exist only between the single tenant and the Housing Authority. Accordingly, no “single right in which all have a common and undivided interest” has been shown, and the claims of the individual tenants cannot be aggregated. Since no one claim reaches the minimum jurisdictional amount, jurisdiction in this action cannot rest upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former requirements were satisfied by a Railway Labor Act controversy arising under federal law and involving more than $10,000.

Illinois Central Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers · filed 1969-04-24

This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the Judicial Code (28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337) and the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq). The amount involved in this controversy exceeds the sum of $10,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement, a controverted allegation above $10,000 survives dismissal unless invalid to a legal certainty, and a fact-specific showing may be postponed until trial.

Murray v. Vaughn · filed 1969-06-06

First, it is clear that, when an allegation of an amount in controversy in excess of $10,000 is made and controverted by the defense, the plaintiff has the opportunity to show that his claim is valid and the complaint cannot be dismissed unless it appears to a legal certainty that his claim is invalid. … While plaintiff has not submitted precise amounts in support of his claim, it is clear that he is free to so do. Moreover, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d) permits this court to postpone such a specific showing until trial. Because the amount alleged to be in controversy by the plaintiff is so plainly dependent on his substantive claims, cf. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946), the court hereby orders such a postponement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)'s former jurisdictional amount could not be satisfied by an equitable constitutional claim whose alleged damages were incapable of monetary measurement.

Ackerman v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · filed 1969-07-09(a)

Thus, jurisdiction cannot be established under section 1331(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For injunctive relief under § 1331's former amount requirement, the amount in controversy was the value of the right to be protected or the injury to be prevented, not the immediate monetary cost.

Marquez v. Hardin · filed 1969-09-05

Although the cost of a school lunch is only thirty-five cents, the amount in controversy for the purposes of § 1331 is far greater. Plaintiffs’ prayer is for injunctive relief, not damages, and in injunction cases the amount in controversy is the value of the right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For § 1331's former amount requirement, the entire controversy was counted once personal jurisdiction attached, including underpayments occurring both before and after the applicable statute's effective date.

Deering Milliken Research Corporation v. Textured Fibres, Inc., Virginia Mills, Inc., and Throwing Corporation of Americ · filed 1969-09-11

The licensees also argue that since there has been no proof that the alleged underpayments occurring after January 1, 1968 aggregated $10,000, the jurisdictional amount required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is lacking. This argument confuses jurisdiction over the person with jurisdictional amount. Once jurisdiction over the person is obtained, tKe entire subject matter of the controversy between the parties comes before the court. Therefore, to determine the jurisdictional amount, the total underpayments, those occurring before and after January 1, 1968 — here alleged to be $45,000 — should be considered.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Federal statutory property claims outside civil-rights jurisdiction are relegated to Section 1331(a) and must satisfy its former amount-in-controversy requirement.

McCall v. Bernard Shapiro, Commissioner, Connecticut Welfare Department · filed 1969-08-11(a)

It is reasonably clear then that Section 1343(3) and (4) dealing with statutes providing for “equal rights” and “civil rights” were aimed at questions of personal liberty rather than property matters, and that the latter are relegated to the general provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former jurisdictional-amount requirement could not be satisfied by aggregating separate and distinct property-based taxpayer claims.

Booth v. Lemont Manufacturing Corp. · filed 1969-09-30

It is undisputed that no single taxpayer has a claim against any of the defendants even approaching $10,000. The Supreme Court has recently held that separate and distinct claims presented by and for various claimants may not be aggregated to provide the requisite $10,000 jurisdictional amount.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied by evidence that the challenged restraint threatened film receipts exceeding $10,000.

Grove Press, Inc. v. State of Kansas · filed 1969-10-06

Ample demonstration was made of the fact that upon continued showing of the film receipts to Grove Press would probably exceed $10,000. The evidence with respect to Lakeside Theater’s interest in the exhibition of the films involved in that case sufficiently establishes the existence of controversy and the requisite jurisdictional amount.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331(a)'s former amount-in-controversy requirement, a pre-induction challenge could be valued above $10,000 by considering the pecuniary rewards of a college education.

Walsh v. Local Board No. 10, Mount Vernon, New York · filed 1969-10-22(a)

The controversy here concerning petitioner’s alleged “blatantly lawless” draft classification and eventual induction into the armed forces is, to be sure, a substantial controversy, and, with an appropriate allegation coupled with judicial notice of the pecuniary rewards of a college education, we can assume, as the Supreme Court did in Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 11, 393 U.S. 233, 89 S.Ct. 414, 21 L.Ed.2d 402 (1968), that the amount involved exceeds $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement could be measured by the difference in property value caused by the challenged zoning restriction.

Saar v. Town of Davie · filed 1969-11-21

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. There is a federal question, the alleged unconstitutionality of the zoning law, and the requisite jurisdictional amount is provided by the difference in the value of the property if a service station can be built on it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's amount-in-controversy requirement may be satisfied by the capitalized amount of rent reductions affecting real property.

Eisen v. Eastman · filed 1969-11-28

The capitalized amount of the rent reductions was clearly in excess of $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331 did not confer jurisdiction when the plaintiff failed to allege the required amount in controversy.

Morris Berman, ll.b. v. Board of Elections, City of New York, Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General,and Nelson A. Rockefe · filed 1969-12-15

There is no jurisdiction under § 1331 because no jurisdictional amount is alleged and jurisdiction rests upon the Civil Rights Statute, § 1343.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's amount-in-controversy requirement was met by proof that the value of the plaintiff's claim exceeded $10,000.

Murray v. Blatchford · filed 1969-12-24

For the reasons stated in Murray v. Vaughn, 300 F.Supp. 688 at 694-696 (D.R.I.1969), this court holds that there is jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 1331. Murray submitted sufficient proof that his claim exceeded $10,-000 in value.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under section 1331(a), a formal allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum withstands dismissal unless the complaint shows to a legal certainty that less is at issue.

Boulevard Realty Corp. v. Providence Redevelopment Agency · filed 1969-12-31(a)

It is well settled that such a formal allegation is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss based on the grounds that the amount in controversy is less than the requisite amount. An action may be properly dismissed only when it appears to a legal certainty from the face of the complaint that less than the minimal jurisdictional amount is in controversy.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For § 1331(a)'s historical amount-in-controversy requirement, a complaint may place more than $10,000 at issue by alleging that serious injury or death could diminish the plaintiff's future earning capacity by that amount.

Berk v. Laird · filed 1970-06-19(a)

Berk’s jurisdictional allegation relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) has been challenged; but the complaint can be construed as putting in controversy his future earning capacity, which serious injury or even death might diminish by an amount exeeding $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A complaint dependent on section 1331 must allege the historical jurisdictional amount to support declaratory relief.

Majuri v. United States · filed 1970-08-17

Jurisdiction in this case depends upon 28 U. S.C. § 1331 (1964), and there is no allegation in the complaint or affidavits of the requisite jurisdictional amount. ... The complaint here was properly dismissed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A National Bank Act claim against a national bank ordinarily supports section 1331 jurisdiction only if the plaintiff satisfies the historical amount-in-controversy requirement.

Williams v. American Fletcher National Bank & Trust Co. · filed 1970-08-28(a)

With exceptions not pertinent, federal jurisdiction of an action against a national bank which seeks recovery under the National Bank Act can be sustained only upon a showing of the proper jurisdictional amount.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A private landlord's alleged breach of a federal housing regulation would support jurisdiction only under § 1331, subject to its historical $10,000 amount requirement.

McGuane v. Chenango Court, Inc. · filed 1970-09-22

Finally, even if there were such a regulation, a breach of it by defendant would not support federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) but only under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, with its requirement of a $10,000 jurisdictional amount, not satisfied here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A claim that a federal statute threatens more than $10,000 in benefits and earning capacity arises under federal law and satisfies § 1331's historical jurisdictional-amount requirement.

Gainville v. Richardson · filed 1970-10-29

Aims’ claim that the threatened application to him of § 403(f) (3) has deprived and will deprive him of $10,000 in benefits to which he would otherwise be entitled, and has deterred him and will deter him from earning $10,000 arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and involves the requisite jurisdictional amount. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement had to be alleged and demonstrated; a complaint omitting any allegation of more than $10,000 could not rely on the section.

Phillips v. Rockefeller · filed 1970-12-02

No action may be brought under section 1331 unless the matter in controversy exceeds $10,000 exclusive of interests and costs. This complaint does not allege this jurisdictional amount, nor has any attempt been made to demonstrate that this jurisdictional amount requirement can be met in any event. Hence plaintiffs cannot rely on section 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A declaratory-judgment action depending on Section 1331 must independently allege the former jurisdictional amount because the Declaratory Judgment Act does not itself confer jurisdiction.

Majuri v. United States · filed 1970-12-07

But the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 (1964), is limited in operation to those cases which would be otherwise within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Jurisdiction in this case depends upon 28 U. S.C. § 1331 (1964), and there is no allegation in the complaint or affidavits of the requisite jurisdictional amount.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction when plaintiffs raise a federal question and satisfy the historical amount-in-controversy requirement.

Ely v. Velde · filed 1971-01-22

Jurisdiction also lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, since the plaintiffs raise a federal question and meet the requirement of jurisdictional amount.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For § 1331(a)'s historical amount requirement, allegations that federal officials seriously inhibited personal constitutional liberties may be construed broadly as placing more than $10,000 in controversy.

Fifth Avenue Peace Parade Committee v. Hoover · filed 1971-04-28(a)

For purposes of this motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, therefore, plaintiffs’ allegations of violations of personal constitutional liberties are sufficiently grave to satisfy the $10,000 requirement of § 1331(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A complaint invoking § 1331(a) was subject to dismissal if it failed to allege that the historical amount in controversy exceeded $10,000, although the defect could be cured by amendment.

Knight v. State of New York · filed 1971-05-12(a)

the complaint was clearly subject to dismissal on a ground that apparently did not occur to anyone, namely, its failure to allege that “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs * * * ” required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). ... We have written on the assumption that plaintiff could have cured this defect by amendment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Tenants with separate leasehold rights cannot aggregate their claims to satisfy Section 1331's former jurisdictional-amount requirement unless they assert a common and undivided interest.

Mattingly v. Elias · filed 1971-04-21

Under Snyder v. Harris, ... supra ... plaintiffs cannot aggregate their claims to meet the statutory jurisdictional amounts, unless they assert a “common and undivided interest.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Separate and distinct claims of class members cannot be aggregated to satisfy Section 1331's former $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.

Dougall v. Sugarman · filed 1971-05-24

It appears unlikely that plaintiffs can meet the $10,000 jurisdictional requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, since the claims of the class members, being separate and distinct, may not be added together.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A plaintiff relying on Section 1331's historical amount-in-controversy requirement bears the burden of establishing that more than $10,000 is in controversy.

Kinoy v. Mitchell · filed 1971-07-13

It is clear that plaintiffs have the burden of establishing that more than $10,000 is in controversy and, since they have not done so, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 cannot be sustained.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A complaint alleging more than § 1331(a)'s historical jurisdictional amount cannot be dismissed on its face merely because specifically identified seizures total less; factual development may determine whether the threshold is met.

Bethea v. Joseph J. Reid, Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Newark, New Jersey, Etal. · filed 1971-07-27(a)

It cannot be concluded from the face of the complaint that the allegation of jurisdictional amount is insufficient, but further proceedings may develop that the jurisdictional amount specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (1964) is lacking.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A federal statutory conspiracy claim alleging more than $10,000 in damages satisfies § 1331's historical arising-under and jurisdictional-amount requirements.

Tredwell A. Harrison and M. Gale Harrison v. Brooks · filed 1971-07-27

Since plaintiffs have alleged more than $10,000 in damages, they could bring this case as a civil action arising under the laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A complaint presenting a federal question but omitting § 1331's historical allegation that more than $10,000 is in controversy may be amended when the threshold likely is met.

Golden Dawn Shops, Inc. v. Department of Housing & Urban Development · filed 1971-12-03

Plaintiff has properly alleged the existence of an issue arising under federal law. The statute establishing federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1964), requires an allegation of an amount in controversy exceeding $10,000, with which plaintiff has not complied. Since it appears likely that the amount in controversy does exceed $10,000, leave will be granted to the plaintiff to supply the necessary allegation by amendment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists over a suit arising under a federal employment statute when more than the former $10,000 amount is in controversy.

Illinois State Employees Union, Council 34 v. Hodgson · filed 1971-12-20

The plaintiff asserts that it has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because its suit arises under the Emergency Employment Act and because the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 (the payments involved in the State of Illinois program will be over $4,000,000). We believe, therefore, that we do have jurisdiction.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a) also confers jurisdiction over a federal fair-representation claim when the former $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied.

Retana v. Apartment, Motel, Hotel & Elevator Operators Union, Local No. 14 · filed 1972-01-10(a)

If the amount involved exceeds $10,000, jurisdiction would also be conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a): ... “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A party invoking Section 1331's former amount requirement had to prove by competent and preponderant evidence that the claim exceeded $10,000, and dismissal followed when recovery above that amount was legally impossible.

Davis v. Shultz · filed 1971-12-27

A party asserting § 1331 jurisdiction has the burden of establishing by competent and preponderate evidence that his claims exceed $10,000. ... Normally an allegation of $10,000. damages made in good faith is sufficient, but if it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional amount, the case will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331's historical amount requirement, the amount in a suit to enjoin an ordinance is measured by the cost the plaintiff would incur if the ordinance were enforced, and claims of federal preemption and denial of equal protection present federal questions.

Allway Taxi, Inc. v. City of New York · filed 1972-04-10

The object of this action is to enjoin the enforcement of an ordinance. The amount in controversy, therefore, is determined by the cost which would be incurred by taxi owners if the ordinance were enforced. ... We also reject defendants’ contention that no federal question is involved since plaintiffs allege both preemption by a federal statute and denial of their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, we find that this court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, and defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of such jurisdiction is denied.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a) remained available for pre-induction judicial review when plaintiffs made an appropriate, undisputed offer of proof on the former jurisdictional amount.

Piercy v. Tarr · filed 1972-06-01(a)

Although the court has some difficulty with this approach, it cannot hold at this late date that pre-induction judicial review is unavailable under Section 1331(a). In any ease, plaintiffs here made an appropriate offer of proof on this question at trial which the defendants did not seriously dispute.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A plaintiff invoking Section 1331's historical amount requirement must itself establish more than $10,000 in controversy and cannot rely solely on economic injury to unidentified members it does not properly represent.

Soap & Detergent Ass'n v. City of Chicago · filed 1972-06-21

Jurisdiction is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Therefore plaintiff must establish the jurisdictional amount of $10,000. ... Hence, although plaintiff alleges the conclusion of irreparable harm to itself and its members, there is no showing on the face of the Complaint how the plaintiff itself can be damaged. ... Because the threshold disability of plaintiff and the lack of the jurisdictional amount of damages, we do not reach the merits of defendant’s other special defenses or of the Complaint generally.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former federal-question and $10,000 amount requirements were met where the action presented a question of federal law and the plaintiff stood to lose at least $10,000 in fees.

Nolan v. Judicial Council of Third Circuit · filed 1972-07-29

This action does present a question of federal law, and it appears that plaintiff may well lose at least $10,000 in fees as a result of the termination of his services as attorney for the trustee.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)'s former requirements were satisfied by an action arising under federal law with more than $10,000 in controversy.

Sensabaugh v. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, INC., OF VIRGINIA · filed 1972-08-14(a)

arises under federal law and the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former requirements were satisfied where the action arose under the Constitution and the Consumer Credit Protection Act and involved more than $10,000 in annual garnishments.

Hodgson v. Hamilton Municipal Court · filed 1972-07-31

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court has original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $10,000 and arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. This case arises under Article I, § 8, Cl. 3, Regulation of Commerce, and Cl. 4, Bankruptcy, U.S. Constitution. It also arises under a federal statute (15 U.S.C. §§ 1671-77, Consumer Credit Protection Act). The total garnishments processed annually in the Hamilton Municipal Court involve a sum exceeding $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's historical requirements were satisfied by a constitutional due-process claim alleging more than $10,000 in damages.

Grissom v. County of Roanoke · filed 1972-10-06

Regarding defendants’ second contention that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, it is likewise without merit for this action has been brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, alleging damages in excess of $10,000 and involves a constitutional question, i. e., whether there was a deprivation of plaintiff’s property rights by state action in violation of the Due Process Clause. Such an action is proper jurisdictional subject matter for this court.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)'s former amount requirement was satisfied at the dismissal stage when no quantified costs challenged the plaintiffs' allegation that their losses would exceed $10,000.

Citizens for Clean Air, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers, United States Army · filed 1972-08-01(a)

No showing of the quantified costs from new pollution has been made to question plaintiffs’ allegation that they will exceed $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former amount requirement was satisfied when the complaint showed that the object of the litigation exceeded $10,000 from either the plaintiff's or the defendant's viewpoint.

Miller v. Standard Federal Savings and Loan Ass'n · filed 1972-08-07

Although lower courts are divided on the issue, Central Mexico Light and Power Company v. Munch, 116 F.2d 85 (2 Cir. 1940) and Ronzio v. Denver and R. G. W. R. Company, 116 F.2d 604 (10 Cir. 1940), the sensible rulé in federal question cases requires that if it can be determined from the complaint that “the value of the object” involves more than $10,000, whether looked at from the viewpoint of the Plaintiff or from the viewpoint of the Defendant, jurisdictional amount is present.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)'s historical jurisdictional requirements were satisfied when more than $10,000 was in controversy and the case required construing federal law.

Burgess v. Charlottesville Savings and Loan Ass'n · filed 1972-08-24(a)

The amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 and the case involves construction and interpretation of federal law, to-wit, the federal Truth-In-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. ... §§ 1601 et seq.; 12 C.F.R. §§ 226.1 et seq., thereby satisfying the jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former requirements were met by a dispute exceeding $10,000 that arose from alleged violations of federal postal statutes.

Schiaffo v. Helstoski · filed 1972-10-19

Jurisdiction may also be found in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 insofar as a question concerning more than $10,000 arising under the alleged violation of federal statutes 39 U.S.C. §§ 3210, 3211, 3212 and 3213 is involved.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331 can supply jurisdiction over a federal constitutional and statutory challenge when the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000, without reaching Section 1337.

Super Tire Engineering Company v. Lloyd W. McCorkle Commissioner of the Department of Institutions and Agencies of the S · filed 1972-11-22

The jurisdiction of the District Court was alleged to be grounded on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1337. The applicability of § 1337 need not be discussed, for, it appearing that the amount in controversy exceeds §10,000., jurisdiction can be based on § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's jurisdictional-amount requirement did not bar constitutional employment claims alleging sex discrimination and retaliatory discharge under color of state law.

O'BRIEN v. Shimp · filed 1973-01-12

As we found in regard to Count I we find that the conduct complained of in Count II was done under color of State law, that the defendant is not entitled to immunity, that there is not an adequate remedy at law and that the jurisdictional amount presents no problem.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a city's federal statutory claim when its allegation that more than $10,000 is at stake is clearly substantiated.

Aguayo v. Richardson · filed 1973-01-18

Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 it had jurisdiction over the City's statutory claim against both sets of defendants since the City's allegation that it had more than $10,000 at stake was clearly substantiated.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)'s historical amount requirement demanded a valuably measurable interest exceeding $10,000, so constitutional rights did not automatically satisfy the threshold in a circuit following the restrictive approach.

Kelley v. Metropolitan County Board of Education, Tenn. · filed 1973-02-23(a)

In order to establish the existence of jurisdiction under Section 1331, the general “federal question” jurisdiction statute, the plaintiff must overcome the ten thousand dollar jurisdictional amount requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). ... The Court finds this less restrictive approach to be highly persuasive and, on the facts before it, would be predisposed to hold that the deprivations asserted here more than satisfy the jurisdictional amount requirement; but, in light of this Circuit’s decision in Goldsmith v. Sutherland and the absence of Supreme Court decisions expressly to the contrary, the Court feels compelled to conclude that the requisite jurisdictional amount is not satisfied in the present ease.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 1331's historical rule, federal-question jurisdiction was unavailable when the plaintiff failed to allege the jurisdictional amount.

Horodner v. Cahn · filed 1973-06-15

Absent jurisdictional amount, there is no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In order to find jurisdiction, therefore, Horodner’s complaint must be read as seeking to redress the deprivation, under color of State statutes, of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States, invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and its jurisdictional counterpart, 28 U.S.C. § ... 1343(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Separate class members may not aggregate their monetary claims to satisfy Section 1331's then-applicable amount-in-controversy requirement.

Ramirez v. Weinberger · filed 1973-08-28

They, nevertheless, assert that federal question jurisdiction may be established under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 by aggregating the monetary claims of the individual members of the class they seek to represent. But, even if we were to allow this case to proceed as a class action, such aggregation is impermissible in order to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Class members may aggregate claims for Section 1331's then-applicable amount requirement when they enforce a common and undivided right and no member can sue without affecting the others' rights.

New Jersey Welfare Rights Organization v. Cahill · filed 1973-08-28

When, as here, the adversary of the class has no interest in how the claim is to be distributed among members of the class, none of the class members could bring suit without affecting rights of other class members, and the rights asserted are common to the class rather than individually held, aggregation is allowed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331 jurisdiction was unavailable when the plaintiff failed to satisfy its then-applicable $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.

Doe v. Lukhard · filed 1973-08-30

For example, federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (not present here by virtue of the failure of plaintiff to satisfy the $10,000 amount in controversy requirement), or commerce clause jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. See. 1337, also lacking here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A class invoking Section 1331 had to show that each member met the statute's then-applicable $10,000 amount-in-controversy minimum.

Smith v. City of East Cleveland · filed 1973-09-06

Furthermore, in this ease the plaintiffs have not provided evidence sufficient to determine whether the amount in controversy as to each member of the class meets the $10,000 jurisdictional .minimum required under § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A claim cognizable under the federal securities laws satisfied § 1331's former jurisdictional-amount requirement when more than $10,000 was in controversy.

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,086 Nor-Tex Agencies, Inc., and W. E. Riley v. Richard M. Jones, Charles Owen and Continental Nat · filed 1973-10-11

Each claim herein presents a question cognizable under federal statutes and meets the $10,000 jurisdictional amount of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1970).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331 jurisdiction existed where a substantial federal Clean Air Act question was presented and threatened health injury put more than $10,000 in controversy.

Citizens Association of Georgetown v. Washington · filed 1974-01-02

However, the Court is of the opinion that this Court can exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which gives the district courts jurisdiction over a federal question in which the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000. The Court has determined that a substantial federal question exists as to whether the Clean Air Act of 1970 requires that the Maloney and Inland developments be reviewed during their construction to determine their potentiality for interfering with attainment and maintenance of the national standards in Washington, D. C. The Court also has concluded that injury to Plaintiffs’ health from the violation of national ambient air standards represents an amount in controversy that exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.