28 U.S.C. § 1331

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

Under former Section 1331(a), the amount in controversy in an action to enjoin a regulation is measured by the plaintiff's cost of complying with that regulation.

Friendship Medical Center, Ltd. v. Chicago Board of Health · filed 1973-11-16(a)

Stated another way, the amount in controversy in a suit to enjoin a regulatory law is the cost to the plaintiff if he is forced to obey that law.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under former Section 1331, federal-question jurisdiction fails when the plaintiff neither alleges that more than $10,000 is in controversy nor supplies anything in the pleadings or record showing that amount is involved.

Jolly v. United States of America, and American Federation of Government Employees, Etc. · filed 1974-01-11

Plaintiff has made no allegation that the matter in controversy here exceeds $10,000, and nothing in the pleadings or record indicates that such an amount is involved. Thus, plaintiff has failed to establish that the federal court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under former Section 1331, a plaintiff put to proof of the amount in controversy must affirmatively establish that more than $10,000 is at stake.

Manos v. City of Green Bay · filed 1974-01-21

Defendants’ answer put the plaintiff to his proof. Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence in reply, except to indicate in affidavits directed to the restraining order that plaintiff has invested more than $20,000 in improvements to his tavern. Whether this entire amount will be lost with the revocation of the liquor license has not been established. Thus, jurisdiction cannot be based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under former Section 1331, a plaintiff who asserts a bona fide claim exceeding $10,000 satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement.

Morton v. Charles County Board of Education · filed 1974-03-06

Plaintiff has asserted a bona fide claim of more than $10,000, and this court has jurisdiction to grant relief to her.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under former Section 1331, a claim presenting a federal question still lacks original federal-question jurisdiction when the required amount is not in controversy.

Lewis v. Brinegar · filed 1974-03-20

Even though plaintiff’s claim against the Commission presents a federal question, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1970) cannot be invoked because the requisite amount is not in controversy. For that reason, this Court does not have original jurisdiction and the claim must be considered a state claim. But it is a state claim only in the sense that a state court alone would have independent jurisdiction to hear the federal question.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A constitutional claim exceeding the former $10,000 amount threshold falls within § 1331 jurisdiction.

Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. · filed 1974-06-17

Since the complaint and lease agreement, as incorporated, fairly read, leave little doubt that the matter in controversy exceeds $10,000 and arises under the Constitution of- the United States, there is jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331’s former requirements permit federal-question jurisdiction over a school district on constitutional claims when the plaintiff proves that more than $10,000 is in controversy.

Doscher v. SEMINOLE COM. CON. SCH. D. NO. 1, GAINES CTY., TEX. · filed 1974-07-19

Although the Seminole Common Consolidated School District Number One is not a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff has alleged a cause of action based upon deprivation and violation of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to the Constitution of the United States and has satisfactorily proven to the court that the value of the matter in controversy exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and such allegations and proof by the plaintiff give this court jurisdiction over the common school district because of the federal questions in this case arising under the Constitution of the United States, that is the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331 may furnish jurisdiction for a due-process claim against a school board if the plaintiff alleges the statute’s former jurisdictional amount.

English v. North East Board of Education · filed 1974-11-06

Because plaintiff alleges a deprivation of due process jurisdiction might also be under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, provided that the requisite jurisdictional amount were alleged.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331’s former jurisdictional-amount requirement is not met by individual damages claims worth far less than the statutory threshold.

Virginia R. Herzbrun, and v. Milwaukee County, And · filed 1974-11-15

Except for Mrs. Herzbrun, the individual damages were far less than the jurisdictional amount under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An unchallenged formal allegation of the historical Section 1331 amount in controversy satisfies the plaintiff’s burden at the pleading stage.

Burchette v. Dumpson · filed 1974-12-13

A plaintiff discharges his burden (under § 1331) with an unchallenged, formal allegation of jurisdictional amount.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331’s former amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied by claims for $15,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages arising from alleged unconstitutional conduct by immigration officials.

Stokes v. United States, Immigration & Nat. Serv. · filed 1975-01-09

Plaintiffs each seek $15,000 compensatory damages and $100,000 punitive damages for the emotional pain, suffering and humiliation resulting from the alleged unconstitutional acts of the defendants. Jurisdiction lies under this statute.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a) may provide jurisdiction over an unsuccessful bidder's challenge to federal procurement action if the complaint adequately alleges the historical amount-in-controversy requirement, and the complaint may be amended to plead that ground.

Tenth St. Bldg. Corp. v. ADMINISTRATOR OF GEN. SERV. A. · filed 1975-01-23(a)

We do believe, however, that jurisdiction may be available under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). If plaintiffs adequately allege the amount in controversy requirement in Section 1331(a) we will allow them to amend their complaint to plead this jurisdictional ground.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a) may provide jurisdiction over an unsuccessful bidder's challenge to federal procurement action if the complaint adequately alleges the historical amount-in-controversy requirement, and the complaint may be amended to plead that ground.

Tenth Street Building Corp. v. Administrator of the General Services Administration · filed 1975-01-23(a)

We do believe, however, that jurisdiction may be available under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). If plaintiffs adequately allege the amount in controversy requirement in Section 1331(a) we will allow them to amend their complaint to plead this jurisdictional ground.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Punitive-damages claims may be considered in determining whether a constitutional damages action meets Section 1331's former $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.

Hanna v. Robert Drobnick, Building Commissioner · filed 1975-04-23

We also agree with appellants that punitive damage claims may be looked to in order to reach the jurisdictional amount of damages of $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement was not met by alleging only a $1,030 debt and no other monetary loss or deprivation.

Doe v. Laconia Supervisory Union No. 30 · filed 1975-06-24

There is no other claim of monetary loss or deprivation and I rule, as a matter of law, that plaintiff has not made a prima facie showing of meeting the amount in controversy requirement of section 1331. Accordingly, this court does not have jurisdiction over defendant Supervisory Union and the action against it is dismissed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A complaint invoking Section 1331(a) under its former text had to allege the jurisdictional amount, and omission of that allegation required dismissal.

Smith v. United States Civil Service Commission · filed 1975-07-14(a)

The jurisdictional basis for this case must be 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), ... which provides: ... The amended complaint does not contain allegations satisfying the jurisdictional amount and was properly dismissed on that ground alone, although not raised by the parties nor mentioned as a ground by the district court in its dismissal order.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Former § 1331 supplies jurisdiction when a claim arises under a federal statute and more than $10,000 is in controversy.

Don't Tear It Down, Inc. v. Washington · filed 1975-08-26

The Court further finds that plaintiffs’ claim arises under a federal statute, the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation Act, that more than $10,000 is in controversy, and therefore that this Court has jurisdiction . pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1970).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Former § 1331 supports a constitutional civil-rights action when the required jurisdictional amount is pleaded and appears to exist.

Dells, Inc. v. Mundt · filed 1975-09-04

The action is said to arise under the Constitution of the United States, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985). Jurisdiction is based on both general federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331) and civil rights jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1343). For the purposes of general federal question jurisdiction, the requisite jurisdictional amount is pleaded and appears to exist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331 ordinarily supplies jurisdiction for civil-rights actions against federal officials, but under its former text the complaint had to allege more than $10,000 in controversy.

Nguyen Da Yen, Cross-Appellees v. Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State, Cross-Appellants · filed 1975-11-05

The ordinary jurisdictional basis for civil rights actions against Federal officials, also relied on by the district court, is 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... However, § 1331 requires that the “matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000 . . . .” ... Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to allege that the matter in controversy is worth that sum. While the complaint may be amended to provide the requisite jurisdictional allegation, the jurisdiction of the district court is not properly invoked at this time.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Former § 1331 supports jurisdiction when a federal question is raised and more than $10,000 is in controversy.

Firelands Sewer & Water Construction Co. v. Valentine · filed 1975-12-03

Jurisdiction of this court exists by virtue of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 because there is diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000, and because a federal question has been raised.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For § 1331's historical jurisdictional-amount requirement, the amount claimed in good faith controls even when the plaintiff ultimately recovers less.

Butterman v. Walston & Co. · filed 1970-01-21

The plaintiffs’ charge that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking because the court ordered a judgment for less than the jurisdictional amount of $10,000 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is not persuasive since it is the amount claimed in good faith by the plaintiffs which determines whether the jurisdictional amount is met, even though the amount actually recovered is less.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Dismissal for failure to satisfy section 1331's historical amount-in-controversy requirement is improper unless it is legally certain that less than $10,000 is at issue.

Cortright v. Resor · filed 1971-03-23(a)

Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is inappropriate unless it appears to a legal certainty that less than $10,000 is at issue.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former amount requirement is satisfied when the evidence does not establish to a legal certainty that the claims are for less than the jurisdictional amount.

Opelika Nursing Home, Inc. v. Richardson · filed 1973-01-04

Although the evidence regarding the amount in controversy is highly speculative, nevertheless the plaintiffs appear to have shown that it does not appear to a legal certainty that their claims are really for less than the jurisdictional amount. Accordingly, this Court holds that jurisdiction is vested by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied unless the court is convinced to a legal certainty that the controversy involves less than the jurisdictional minimum.

Walker v. McCune · filed 1973-08-24

Accordingly, this Court is not satisfied to a legal certainty that the controversy in question involves less than the required $10,000, and defendants’ alternative motion to dismiss on these grounds will be denied.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 1331(a), the amount in controversy is sufficient unless the court can conclude to a legal certainty that the claim is below the statutory threshold.

Bruton v. Schnipke · filed 1974-02-15(a)

As to plaintiffs’ second alleged basis of jurisdiction, the Court ruled that there was federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) as to plaintiffs BYYKKONEN and WELLS only. Defendants had previously conceded that such jurisdiction existed if the amount in controversy as to these plaintiffs exceeded $10,000. Having examined these plaintiffs’ affidavits and the allegations of the complaint, the Court cannot conclude to a legal certainty that the claim of either is for less than the jurisdictional amount.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under former Section 1331(a), an organization's good-faith claim that pollution would cause its members more than $10,000 in damage controls unless the defendants refute it.

Save Our Sound Fisheries Ass'n v. Callaway · filed 1974-03-05(a)

No showing has been made by defendants to refute plaintiff’s good faith claim that pollution of the fishing waters in question would result in damages to the members of the plaintiff organization in excess of $10,000, and thus the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Dismissal for failure to meet Section 1331's historical amount-in-controversy requirement is proper only when it appears to a legal certainty that less than $10,000 is at stake.

Bloodworth v. Oxford Village Townhouses, Inc. · filed 1974-06-28(a)

It is well settled that dismissal for failure to satisfy the jurisdictional amount is justified only where it appears to a legal certainty that the amount is less than $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under the historical amount requirement of Section 1331, the sum claimed controls when made in good faith unless it is legally certain to be too small.

James v. Lusby · filed 1974-08-19(a)

It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal. The inability of plaintiff to recover an amount adequate to give the court jurisdiction does not show his bad faith or oust the jurisdiction.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When plaintiffs assert one undifferentiated claim and no one seriously challenges the good faith of their allegation, the complaint controls whether the historical Section 1331 amount requirement is met.

Molokai Homesteaders Cooperative Ass'n v. Morton · filed 1974-10-29

In their joint complaint, plaintiffs alleged that the amount in controversy exceeds ten thousand dollars, exclusive of interests and costs. Since the plaintiffs are asserting one undifferentiated claim rather than separate demands, the jurisdictional amount required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is sufficiently pleaded. Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U.S. 583, 59 S.Ct. 744, 83 L.Ed. 1001 (1939). Where, in the district court, neither defendants nor the court questions the good faith of the allegation, the jurisdictional question is determined by the allegations of the complaint.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A good-faith allegation satisfying Section 1331(a)'s former amount-in-controversy requirement controlled unless it appeared to a legal certainty that the claim was invalid.

Silva v. East Providence Housing Authority · filed 1975-02-11(a)

Lastly, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have made sufficient allegations to confer § 1331(a) jurisdiction on the Court. Plaintiffs’ good faith allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the $10,000 jurisdictional requirement cannot be ignored since it does not appear to a legal certainty that their claim is invalid.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement, jurisdiction exists unless it appears to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy is less than $10,000.

Wagner v. Simon · filed 1975-07-01

First, defendants claim that plaintiff has failed to establish the $10,000 jurisdictional amount required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1970). This contention is without merit. ... The Court finds and concludes that it does not appear to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy herein is less than $10,000, and therefore there is subject matter jurisdiction.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Former § 1331 jurisdiction exists unless it appears to a legal certainty that less than $10,000 is in controversy.

Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County, a California Nonprofit Corporation v. The City of Petaluma, a Califo · filed 1975-10-02

The district court had jurisdiction not only under § 1343 but also under the general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It does not appear to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy is less than $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A good-faith allegation exceeding Section 1331's former $10,000 amount requirement sufficed for a substantial constitutional-rights claim unless unreasonable on its face.

Gresham v. City of Chicago · filed 1975-10-28

In light of these allegations, the plaintiff’s claim as to the amount in controversy is not on its face unreasonable nor in bad faith and is thus sufficient for jurisdiction under § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)'s former amount-in-controversy requirement could not be satisfied by aggregating smaller claims of individual federal employees.

Leyden v. Federal Avaition Administration · filed 1970-08-05(a)

The action cannot be sustained on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, since 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) requires that more than $10,000 be in controversy, and this amount cannot be made up by consolidating smaller individual ... claims.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Each plaintiff must independently satisfy section 1331's historical amount-in-controversy requirement.

Joiner v. City of Dallas · filed 1971-01-11

Upon these allegations, Plaintiffs have not shown that each of the Plaintiffs has the requisite amount in controversy to confer federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S. C. § 1331) upon this Court.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Separate property owners cannot aggregate distinct tax-overassessment claims to satisfy Section 1331(a)'s former amount-in-controversy requirement.

Jones v. Township of North Bergen · filed 1971-09-30(a)

The individual interests they seek to protect are liability for municipal property taxes alleged to have been improperly assessed. Such interests are separate and distinct as to each property owner and cannot be aggregated in an alleged class action to satisfy the requisite jurisdictional amount.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former jurisdictional-amount requirement must be proved by each plaintiff seeking federal-question jurisdiction.

Soap and Detergent Association v. City of Chicago · filed 1973-03-06

Plaintiffs Soap and Detergent Association, Monsanto Company and Amway Corporation have failed to prove the jurisdictional amount required by 28 U.S. C. § 1331, and their complaints will be dismissed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)'s former amount requirement warrants dismissal when each named plaintiff's claim is legally certain to fall below the jurisdictional amount.

Duffany v. Van Lare · filed 1973-05-22(a)

It appears here to a legal certainty that the claim of any named plaintiff is less than the jurisdictional amount, and dismissal is warranted.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's historical amount requirement was satisfied in an injunction action when threatened loss of civilian income and liberty could reasonably produce more than $10,000 in special and other damages for each plaintiff.

Garmon v. Warner · filed 1973-05-30

The court is of the opinion that although defendants have not done things which entitle plaintiffs at present to recover $10,000 each, they have made it clear that they intend to do things which may very well if permitted cause losses to the various plaintiffs exceeding $10,000 in special and other damages. Reasonably construed, the evidence supports a finding that any one of the several plaintiffs who testified does have more than $10,000 in controversy, and that this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's then-applicable amount requirement was unmet by individual program participants but met by agency directors who each administered more than $10,000 in federal program funds.

COMMUNITY ACTION PROG. EXEC. DIR. ASS'N OF NJ, INC. v. Ash · filed 1973-08-28

Although this action arises from an Act of Congress and therefore presents a federal question, the two individual plaintiffs cannot allege the $10,000 amount in controversy needed to avail themselves of § 1331. The 19 Executive Directors with standing, however, each administer NYC funds well in excess of $10,000 and may therefore rely upon § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a) supplied subject-matter jurisdiction over individual plaintiffs whose complaint alleged that the amount in controversy exceeded $10,000.

American Friends Service Committee v. United States · filed 1973-12-31(a)

Jurisdiction over the subject matter does exist pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) with respect to the individual plaintiffs Lorraine Cleveland and Leonard Cadwallader, and 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) gives us subject matter jurisdiction over the refund claim of the AFSC. The complaint alleges that with respect to the two individual named plaintiffs, the amount involved in this particular controversy exceeds the sum of $10,000 exclusive of interest and costs.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under former Section 1331(a), good-faith allegations supported by affidavits that each plaintiff's claim exceeds $10,000 satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement.

Robinson v. Conlisk · filed 1974-04-24(a)

From the good faith allegations of the complaint, supported by affidavits, it appears that the claim of each plaintiff exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Consequently, jurisdiction of this action also lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under the historical version of Section 1331(a), each named plaintiff and each class member had to plead more than $10,000 in controversy.

Borough of Morrisville v. Delaware River Basin Commission · filed 1974-08-08(a)

Nor can plaintiffs found their claims upon the federal question jurisdictional statute, since they have failed to plead that the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 for themselves and for each and every member of the class which they seek to represent.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under the historical version of Section 1331(a), each named plaintiff needed a federal-question claim involving more than $10,000, and failure to make that showing required jurisdictional dismissal.

Bayou Auguste Tenants Organization, Etc. v. George Romney, Etc. · filed 1975-01-17(a)

From this record the court determined that ... none of the named plaintiffs presented a federal question claim involving in excess of 10,000 dollars, exclusive of interest and cost under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), ... On the record before us, we affirm the court’s determinations as to (a) and (b).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A federal interest in proper expenditure of federal welfare funds does not satisfy Section 1331(a) when each plaintiff's amount in controversy is far below the former $10,000 threshold.

Andrews v. Edward W. Maher, Successor to Nicholas Norton, Individually and as Commissioner of Welfare, State of · filed 1975-10-24(a)

this does not suffice to give the district court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) because the amount in controversy for each plaintiff is far less than $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For section 1331's historical amount-in-controversy requirement, the constitutional right to an equally weighted vote has sufficient inherent value to meet any jurisdictional threshold.

West End Neighborhood Corporation v. Stans · filed 1970-03-20

The very life blood of a free and democratic republic springs from this right, and its inherent “value” must be equal to any amount set for jurisdictional purposes.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In an equity suit under section 1331, the historical amount in controversy is measured by the value of the right sought to be protected.

Almacs, Inc. v. Hackett · filed 1970-05-11

More importantly, in equity suits the value to be measured for jurisdictional purposes is the value of the right sought to be protected, here the right to bargain collectively free from state interference, a right which cannot as of this time clearly be valued at less than $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)'s historical amount-in-controversy requirement is not met when the present value of the claimed future monthly benefits remains below $10,000.

Johnson v. Harder · filed 1970-05-15(a)

The requisite amount in controversy to support jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) does not exist in plaintiffs’ claim for the difference between the OASDI benefits of $78.00 per month and the AFDC budgetary allotment of $35.85 per month, nor do the plaintiffs attempt to predicate jurisdiction on that ground. The difference of $42.15 per month for each until the age of 18, commuted to present value at conservative interest rates would not amount to $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For injunctive relief under section 1331's historical monetary threshold, the amount in controversy is the value of the right protected or injury prevented, not damages recoverable in a hypothetical legal action.

Goldsmith v. Major General James W. Sutherland · filed 1970-05-28

The law on this point is quite clear and the rule is that in injunction actions, the amount in controversy is not the amount that the plaintiff might recover at law, but rather 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.

Section 1331(a)'s historical amount-in-controversy requirement has no exception merely because the asserted constitutional right cannot be valued in money.

Post v. Payton · filed 1971-01-20(a)

However unwise the $10,000 requirement may seem to be in establishing federal question jurisdiction, it nevertheless remains in the statute and we find no exception based upon the reason that the alleged damages may be incapable of measurement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For § 1331's historical amount requirement in an injunction suit, the amount in controversy may be measured by either the value of the right to the plaintiff or the defendant's cost of compliance.

Arlo Tatum, Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors v. Melvin R. Laird, Secretary of Defense · filed 1971-04-27

particularly where purely injunctive relief is sought, the amount in controversy may be measured by either “the value of the right sought to be gained by the plaintiff * * * [or] the cost [of enforcing that right] to the defendant. -* * * ”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)'s historical amount requirement demanded an amount exceeding $10,000, so a complaint seeking exactly $10,000 and assigning no value to injunctive relief was insufficient.

Application of Robert Matherson and the Oak Beach Inn Corp. v. The Long Island State Park Commission and the Jones Beach · filed 1971-05-05(a)

We must therefore dismiss this action for failure to allege a statutorily required amount in controversy exceeding $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied by an alleged property-value decrease far exceeding $10,000.

Steel Hill Development, Inc. v. Town of Sanbornton · filed 1971-10-04

We need not decide the scope of civil rights jurisdiction in this regard, since plaintiff has alleged a decrease in the value of his property far in excess of value of his property far in excess of the section 1331 jurisdictional requirements. ... Jurisdiction, therefore, is ... proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1381, and the Town of Sanbornton is a proper party defendant for the purpose of determining whether the zoning amendments, as they apply to plaintiff’s property, are constitutional.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For § 1331's historical amount requirement in an injunction action, the amount in controversy is the value of the right protected or injury prevented, and a present probability of exceeding $10,000 suffices.

Scherr v. Volpe · filed 1971-12-07

In injunctive actions, the amount in controversy is not the amount that the plaintiffs might recover at law, but the value of the right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented. ... I find that there is a present probability that the value of the matter in controversy will exceed the jurisdictional amount.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)'s former jurisdictional grant required both a substantial federal question and more than $10,000 in controversy, which a complaint seeking only declaratory and injunctive relief did not satisfy.

Lehner v. O'ROURKE · filed 1971-11-04(a)

First, it appears clear that this Court has no jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C. ... as to either cause of action asserted by plaintiff. Section 1331 provides for federal jurisdiction when a substantial federal question is presented ... and ... when the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000. Except for an off-hand allegation in paragraph 1 of the Complaint, plaintiff makes no serious claim for damages. Indeed, his prayer for relief completely omits to mention monetary damages.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For Section 1331(a)'s historical amount requirement, the value of a claim seeking reinstatement to federal employment may include probable future earnings, retirement benefits, and other employment benefits.

White v. Bloomberg · filed 1972-06-23(a)

Thus, viewing this case solely as a suit to enjoin defendants from refusing to reinstate plaintiff to his former position, the value of the rights White seeks to protect, that is, his right to federal employment, exceeds $10,000. ... Probable future earnings and retirement and other benefits may be considered in determining whether the $10,000 jurisdictional amount requirement of section 1331(a) is satisfied.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331 can support a federal equity action to enjoin an allegedly unconstitutional court-martial, and its historical amount requirement need not be examined too closely for a serious constitutional claim.

Schroth v. Warner · filed 1973-01-31

Moylan v. Laird, 305 F.Supp. 551 (D.R.I.1969), decided that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 may be the basis for federal district court jurisdiction to enjoin military authorities from subjecting a serviceman to an unconstitutional court-martial. ... Judge Pettine relies on his own holding in Murray v. Vaughn, 300 F.Supp. 688 (D.R.I.1969), and cases there cited, for the proposition that the jurisdictional amount required by 28 U. S.C. § 1331 need not be examined into too closely when the plaintiff is asserting a most serious constitutional claim. Here too, I agree with the learned judge.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's historical requirements were satisfied by a constitutional challenge to local land-use laws and an allegation that the laws reduced the property's value by more than $10,000.

Arvida Corp. v. City of Boca Raton · filed 1973-04-17

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. There is a federal question, the alleged unconstitutionality of the City Charter provision and ordinances, and the requisite jurisdictional amount is alleged by the difference in the value of the property if development of the land is permitted.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied where each plaintiff sought rescission and each home was valued above $10,000.

Bailey v. Romney · filed 1973-06-01(a)

All plaintiffs’ homes are presently valued by the defendants over the $10,000 jurisdictional minimum, and plaintiffs desire to rescind their purchase contracts. ... The Court determines that the amount in controversy is sufficient to meet the jurisdictional requirements of § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For injunctive relief under § 1331(a), the historical amount in controversy could be measured by either the value of the relief to the plaintiff or the cost of enforcing the right to the defendant.

Williams v. Phillips · filed 1973-06-11(a)

In eases in which purely injunctive relief is sought, the amount in controversy may be measured either by the value of the relief sought by the plaintiff or the cost of enforcing that right to the defendant. ... In this case, the plaintiffs challenge the legal right of the defendant to administer a program with an appropriation of over 790 million dollars for fiscal 1973. ... Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs are found to have met the $10,000 requirement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 1331(a)'s former amount-in-controversy requirement, the right or matter in controversy had to be capable of valuation in dollars and cents.

Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon · filed 1973-10-17(a)

While some decisions have held to the contrary, most notably Spock v. David, 469 F.2d 1047 (3rd Cir. 1972), it is the near-universal view that a right or matter in controversy must be capable of valuation in dollars and cents to sustain jurisdiction under § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's amount-in-controversy requirement may be satisfied by the value of the right the plaintiff seeks to protect, rather than only benefits accrued when suit was filed.

Wiesenfeld v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare · filed 1973-12-11

Jurisdiction may be established under Section 1331 if the value of the right which plaintiff seeks to protect exceeds $10,000. ... Accordingly, we are satisfied that the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 and jurisdiction is properly established under Section 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under former Section 1331, dismissal for failure to meet the amount in controversy is improper unless the claimed liberty and property interests can be valued below the jurisdictional minimum almost to a legal certainty.

Pelisek v. TREVOR STATE GRADED SCH. DIST. NO. 7, SALEM, WIS. · filed 1974-01-30

It must appear almost to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal at this stage in these proceedings. ... I believe that the defendant has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted and that the jurisdictional amount is alleged with sufficiency. The liberty and property interests as to which the plaintiff claims a deprivation are not now susceptible of a valuation at less than the appropriate jurisdictional amount, at least as a matter of law.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331 jurisdiction existed over each tribe's federally secured fishing rights when each tribe's rights were valued above $10,000.

United States v. Washington · filed 1974-02-12

b. 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in that the matter in controversy involves the fishing rights of each of the Plaintiff tribes which in each case have a value in excess of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and are claimed to exist and to be secured under the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For a damages claim under Section 1331’s former amount-in-controversy requirement, the jurisdictional amount is measured by the sum of damages rather than the value of a right already protected through equitable relief.

Smetanka v. Borough of Ambridge, Pennsylvania · filed 1974-07-09

Accordingly, under the Spock case, the jurisdictional amount for purposes of holding the Borough of Ambridge liable for damages must be determined solely by reference to the sum of her damages, and the value of her right test is immaterial because it applies only in cases where jurisdiction is sought for purely equitable relief.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331’s former jurisdictional-amount requirement is satisfied when the threatened financial liability exceeds $10,000, and in an equity suit the amount may be measured by the value of the right sought to be protected.

Hawaiian Tel. Co. v. STATE OF HAWAII DEPT. OF L. & I. REL. · filed 1974-07-12

TELCO is certainly "in commerce" under § 1337 and the question raised is equally certain a federal one under § 1331. The aggregate amount which TELCO would have to pay in to the state's unemployment fund if the state's position is sustained would be over $832,000. If more were needed, as indicated in Almacs, Inc. v. Hackett, 312 F.Supp. 964, 967 (D.R.I.1970): "in equity suits the value to be measured for jurisdictional purposes is the value of the right sought to be protected, here the right to bargain collectively free from state interference, a right which cannot as of this time clearly be valued at less than $10,000." TELCO allegations satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of both §§ 1331 and 1337.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the historical amount requirement of Section 1331, a court may examine the good-faith value behind the sum claimed, and the value of the right involved is the principal test.

Boraks v. Wilson · filed 1974-08-22(a)

Normally, the sum claimed by the plaintiff determines jurisdiction. But this court can look behind the complaint to ascertain the good faith value of the claim presented. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation of Indiana, Inc., 298 U.S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936). The value of the right involved is the principal test for determining jurisdictional amount.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a), subject to its former amount-in-controversy requirement, supplies jurisdiction for injunctive and declaratory relief against federal officials accused of unconstitutional conduct.

Charles R. Wren, Jr. v. Carlson · filed 1974-09-12(a)

With both defendants in the District of Columbia, and charged with unconstitutionally barring conjugal visitation between federal inmates and their spouses, there was both jurisdiction and venue for mandamus ... and, upon satisfaction of the jurisdictional-amount requirement, ... for injunction and declaratory-judgment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For Section 1331’s former amount-in-controversy requirement, the value of an intangible right to communicate may be quantified by the cost of alternative means of communication.

Spock v. Bert A. David, Commander, Fort Dix Military Reservation, and James r.schelsinger, Secretary of Defense · filed 1974-09-23

The testimony that means of communication alternative to those of which the plaintiffs would be deprived by the continuance of the challenged bar orders would cost in excess of $10,000 was sufficient, for purposes of § 1331, to quantify the value of the rights here sought to be protected. The finding of the district court that such alternative means would cost in excess of $10,000 is amply supported by the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A federal prisoner seeking injunctive relief for alleged constitutional violations under Section 1331 had to satisfy the statute’s former $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.

Robert Wayne Grant, 38013. v. Marvin Hogan, Warden, U.S. N.E.P. · filed 1974-11-20

While he might be able to sue under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides for a general federal question jurisdiction, he would have to satisfy the $10,000 jurisdictional amount requirement, a difficult though not insurmountable problem where injunctive relief is sought with respect to alleged deprivations of constitutional rights. ... The Petitioner here, of course, has made no attempt to satisfy the jurisdictional amount requirement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's historical amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied when the disputed federal grants totaled well over $10,000.

City of Hartford v. Hills · filed 1976-01-28

Jurisdiction is present under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 since the grants which are the subject of this controversy total well over $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's historical requirements were satisfied by a complaint alleging that local ordinances and procedures conflicted with the Constitution and placing more than $10,000 in controversy.

Reich v. City of Freeport, an Illinois Municipal Corporation · filed 1976-01-29

The District Court properly had jurisdiction of this case founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, general federal question jurisdiction, since the complaint alleged that certain ordinances and procedures were in conflict with the United States Constitution and since the amount in controversy exceeded $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331 used the same arising-under test as § 1337 but historically also required more than $10,000 in controversy.

Exxon Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission · filed 1976-01-30

Since the Court has held that subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1337, it is clear that jurisdiction must also exist under § 1331, if the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000. The tests under both statutes, except for the amount, are the same.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's historical requirements were met when a National Bank Act controversy involved rights valued above $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

NAT. RETAILER CORP. OF ARIZ. v. Valley Nat. Bank · filed 1976-02-02

For jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) the matter in controversy must exceed “the sum or value of $10,000” and arise under the “laws of the United States.” The present controversy arises under the National Bank Act and interpretive rulings thereto. The Court finds that the sum and the value of plaintiff’s right to offer data processing services, which allegedly has been adversely affected by defendant’s alleged invalid interpretive ruling, are both in excess of $10,000 exclusive of interest and costs.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331 jurisdiction was unavailable where the complaint stated no claim arising under federal law and the plaintiffs failed to establish the then-required amount in controversy.

Porter v. Bainbridge · filed 1975-12-18

The Court lacks jurisdiction of the action under 28 U.S.C., Section 1331, for the reason that the complaint does not state any claim “arising under” any provision of the federal Constitution or laws. In addition, plaintiffs have stipulated that such jurisdiction is lacking with respect to the plaintiffs Porter and Zimmers since the requisite amount in controversy is not alleged. Plaintiff Beauchamp’s allegations with respect to the amount in controversy, limited only to the amount which he would be entitled to receive for attendance at the Second Session of the Ninety-Ninth General Assembly, commencing in November 1975, are insufficient to show the requisite amount in controversy for purposes of 28 U.S.C., Section 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied when more than $10,000 was in controversy in an action asserting an implied federal statutory claim.

EF Hutton & Co., Inc. v. Lewis · filed 1976-02-18

In addition, there would be general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 since more than $10,000 is in controversy.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement, nonmonetary relief was valued from the plaintiffs' viewpoint, separate injuries could not be aggregated, and good-faith allegations of the threshold amount sufficed.

Dallas City Packing, Inc. v. Butz · filed 1976-02-22

No money recovery is sought. The amount in controversy is the extent of the injury to these plaintiffs to be protected. With government agents in their official and individual capacities as defendants this court will review the amount in controversy from the view of the plaintiffs’; that is the loss which they seek to avoid by injunctive and declaratory relief. While plaintiffs’ discrete injuries cannot be aggregated, the amended complaint alleged the requisite jurisdictional amount as to each plaintiff. In the absence of bad faith these allegations are sufficient.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement, the value of the asserted right controls and jurisdiction exists unless that value is legally certain to fall below the threshold.

Miller v. Mallery · filed 1976-03-05

The amount in controversy is measured by determining the value of the right asserted by the plaintiffs. So long as I cannot say to “a legal certainty” that the value of the matter in controversy is less than the jurisdictional amount, jurisdiction must be found to exist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former requirements are satisfied when the action arises under federal law or the Constitution and each plaintiff's stake exceeds $10,000.

Nguyen Da Yen v. Kissinger · filed 1976-03-12

This action arises out of the laws and constitution of the United States and a value in excess of $10,000 per plaintiff has been adequately shown. Jurisdiction is therefore grounded in 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's then-applicable amount-in-controversy requirement had to be established before federal-question jurisdiction could rest on that statute.

Tucker v. City of Montgomery Board of Commissioners · filed 1976-03-16

Plaintiffs have not established the requisite amount in controversy for § 1331 federal question jurisdiction, so they stand or fall on § 1983 and its jurisdictional counterpart.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement, each plaintiff bore a slight burden to show $10,000 in controversy, and dismissal was proper only when failure to meet that threshold was legally certain.

Berlin Democratic Club v. Rumsfeld · filed 1976-03-17

Plaintiffs allege jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, among other statutes. Of course, each plaintiff must have $10,000 in controversy, and the plaintiffs bear the burden of proof. ... That burden is slight, however, since the Court can dismiss the complaint only if it is satisfied to a legal certainty that each plaintiff is not entitled to the $10,000 minimum.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331 supplied jurisdiction where a case presented important questions arising under federal law and more than $10,000 was in controversy.

National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored Persons v. Hills · filed 1976-03-22

Notwithstanding the federal defendants’ suggestion to the contrary, this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The case presents important questions arising under federal law and more than $10,000 is in controversy.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement, claims against state entities could not proceed absent facts permitting an inference that at least $10,000 was involved.

Anthony v. Com. of Mass. · filed 1976-03-29

Nor have the parties stipulated to any facts which would permit the inference that $10,000 or more is ... involved in any of the plaintiffs’ claims, thereby allowing them to be maintained under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The actions against those two defendants must therefore be dismissed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For Section 1331(a)'s former amount-in-controversy requirement, injunctive relief is valued by the right protected or injury prevented, and a right to operate 64 taxicabs was plainly worth more than $10,000.

Mirin v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Nevada · filed 1976-05-11(a)

Plaintiff’s claimed right or privilege in question is the right to operate 64 taxicabs without interference on the streets of Las Vegas. The value of this right or privilege to operate such cabs would obviously be far in excess of $10,000.00 in any reasonable computation. This Court cannot in good faith find that the value of this claimed right or privilege to the Plaintiff does not exceed $10,000.00. Therefore, Plaintiff invokes jurisdiction properly under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (Federal Question Jurisdiction).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied when the claimed amount is not facially unreasonable or pleaded in bad faith.

Weiss v. JC Penney Co., Inc. · filed 1976-05-21

The jurisdictional amount requirement of § 1331 is satisfied since the claim is not on its face unreasonable or in bad faith.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement is not satisfied when the record fails affirmatively to establish that more than $10,000 is at stake.

16 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1637, 12 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 11,048 Witt Campbell, Cross v. Gadsden County District School Board, · filed 1976-07-02

Federal question jurisdiction was also asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but the record does not affirmatively establish the existence of an amount in controversy in excess of $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

National Aviation v. City of Hayward, Cal. · filed 1976-07-13

Plaintiffs’ contention with respect to section 1331 would appear to be correct except that plaintiffs have not alleged that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)'s former requirements were satisfied when the amount in controversy was sufficiently alleged and the action arose under a federal statute, executive order, and implementing regulations.

Reynolds Metals Co. v. Rumsfeld · filed 1976-07-27(a)

The Court concludes that there is jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) because the amount in controver/sy is sufficiently alleged and the case arises /under 44 U.S.C. ... et seq. ... and under Executive Order 11246 and regulations promulgated thereunder.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331(a)'s former amount-in-controversy requirement, a court may value the controversy by the pecuniary burden defendants would bear if plaintiffs prevailed.

Williams v. Kleppe · filed 1976-07-30(a)

The action was brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). The jurisdictional amount was alleged and has not been made an issue. Applying conventional analysis, we are unwilling to ... say on this record that the claimed interests of one or more plaintiffs, some being residents of the Seashore area, may not exceed the jurisdictional amount. Perhaps more realistically, we can rely on the extent of the claimed pecuniary burden on defendants were plaintiffs to prevail.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement, separate class members' claims could not be aggregated, leaving a complaint seeking only $163 plus equitable relief below the threshold.

Gonzalez v. Young · filed 1976-08-13

It is unquestionable that the plaintiff has stated a claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States and that, if the amount here in controversy exceeded $10,000, exclusive of ... costs and interest, this court would have jurisdiction under § 1331. However, it is apparent on the face of the complaint that the plaintiff seeks only $163 in damages together with declaratory and injunctive relief. Even as a class action, the amount in controversy requirement cannot be met because the individual claims of the members of this class cannot be aggregated. ... Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When future losses might satisfy Section 1331's former amount requirement, a court may retain jurisdiction for preliminary-injunction purposes and allow the plaintiff to establish the amount at final hearing.

Chambers v. Klein · filed 1976-08-25

Under the circumstances, I will not dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331, since plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction under that statute at final hearing. ... Since I exercise subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331 for purposes of the application for preliminary injunction, I will not consider the issue raised by the defendant Secretary of HEW that this court lacks jurisdiction over him under 28 U.S.C. § 1361.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)'s former amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied when the likely pecuniary burden on the defendant from the requested relief exceeds $10,000.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Veterans Administration · filed 1976-08-26(a)

Since the pecuniary burden on the VA would probably be in excess of $10,000 should the Commonwealth prevail, we think that the jurisdictional amount requirement is satisfied.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)'s former amount requirement is satisfied when the plaintiff alleges more than $10,000 in damages and the court finds the awarded constitutional relief worth more than $10,000.

Woodward v. Hereford Independent School District · filed 1976-10-12(a)

The plaintiff has alleged damages in excess of $10,000.00, and the court here finds that the relief hereinafter awarded to plaintiff is of a value in excess of $10,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former jurisdictional grant encompasses federal constitutional and federal-law claims when the prescribed $10,000 amount in controversy is satisfied.

Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission · filed 1976-11-04

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction of civil actions arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce (28 U.S.C. § 1337) and original jurisdiction of civil actions arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States if the prescribed $10,000 jurisdictional amount requirement ... is satisfied (28 U.S.C. § 1331). These sections are clearly broad enough to encompass the claims of the plaintiffs.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)'s former $10,000 amount requirement was satisfied by a good-faith claim for lost annual salary exceeding $10,000 unless the claim was legally certain to be worth less.

Davis v. Weidner · filed 1976-11-05(a)

The plaintiff did, however, allege an annual salary in excess of $10,000 which was lost when her employment was terminated. It does not appear that plaintiff’s claim was made in bad faith or that it is certain that the claim is worth less than $10,000. ... I find the $10,000 requirement of Sec. 1331(a) has been satisfied, and the Board’s motion to dismiss must be denied.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For Section 1331's former amount requirement in an injunction suit, the value of the plaintiff's protected right controls and the plaintiff must prove that value when challenged.

City of Milwaukee v. Saxbe · filed 1976-11-12

On balance, we think it preferable to adhere to the approach which measures the amount in controversy by the value of the right to be protected. ... On the present record, we cannot independently conclude that the Fifth Amendment right which City seeks to enforce has satisfactorily been shown to be worth $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former amount requirement may be satisfied in a challenge to municipal candidacy restrictions by the size of the public budget and revenues affected over an extended council term.

Daves v. City of Longwood · filed 1976-11-29

Because of the size of the budget and the revenues that could be generated over an extended period of service on the city council, it is reasonable to assume that the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $10,000.00.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former requirements were satisfied when a federal statutory controversy involved sufficiently alleged injury exceeding $10,000.

General Dynamics Corp. v. Dunlop · filed 1976-12-29

In this action, the injury sought to be prevented is sufficiently alleged in the Complaint as being in excess of the requisite jurisdictional amount and the controversy arises under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C.A. § 552, and 18 U.S.C. § 1905. Jurisdiction is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former prerequisites were a federal question arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties and more than $10,000 in controversy.

United States v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company Appeal of John E. Moss, Member, United States House of Represe · filed 1976-12-30

Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331,' over cases “arising] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” “wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” This case meets the two prerequisites of § 1331, federal question and jurisdictional amount.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement, a good-faith monetary claim establishes jurisdiction unless it appears to a legal certainty that less than the threshold is at stake.

Saal v. Middendorf · filed 1977-02-08

The degree of certainty required to meet the jurisdictional test is considerably less than defendant would have the Court believe. It is sufficient if plaintiff’s monetary claim is made in good faith. ... In the light of the record discussed below, plaintiff’s prospects of realizing the amount claimed are sufficient to preclude a finding that the claim is less than the jurisdictional amount “to a legal certainty.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a school district for backpay and attorney-fee claims when the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

Gosney v. Sonora Independent School District · filed 1977-02-11

... U.S.C. § 1331 gives this court jurisdiction over the school district in regard to the backpay and attorney’s fee claims as the amount in controversy is greater than $10,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's historical jurisdictional-amount requirement bars independent federal-question jurisdiction when the amount in controversy is not satisfied.

Lynch v. Paul Philbrook, Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Social Welfare · filed 1977-02-23

There is no independent federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because of failure to satisfy the jurisdictional amount in controversy.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's then-applicable amount-in-controversy requirement can be satisfied by the value of relief redirecting more than $10,000 in existing government expenditures, even when plaintiffs seek no additional spending.

Black v. Abraham Beame, Individually and as Mayor of the City of New York · filed 1977-02-24

General federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does supply a basis for jurisdiction here. ... In this case, however, the value to the plaintiffs of the relief they are seeking clearly exceeds $10,000. Although — as they have taken special pains to point out— plaintiffs are not seeking any additional state expenditures, they are seeking to redirect funds that do amount to more than $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)'s historical amount-in-controversy requirement excludes damages that have no possible legal basis for recovery.

Scott v. Abilene Independent School District · filed 1977-03-02(a)

Under the rule announced in the above cited cases, the plaintiff’s allegations seeking to recover exemplary damages from the School District were a nullity. There was no possible basis for recovering such damages. The only other damages sought totalled only $8,850.00. Jurisdiction, then, cannot be maintained under 28 U.S.C., Sec. 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge when the right asserted exists and the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.

Cary v. Board of Education of the Adams-Arapahoe School District 28-J · filed 1977-03-03

The initial question for consideration is whether the right claimed by the plaintiffs exists under the Constitution. If it does, there is jurisdiction to determine whether these facts constitute an infringement of it. As to the individual defendants, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provide the basis for jurisdiction, and for all defendants there is jurisdiction to consider the constitutional question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because, ultimately, the teachers’ jobs are at stake and they are worth more than $10,-000.00. However, if there is no such right, there is no jurisdiction.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331(a)’s historical amount requirement, a claimed potential injury exceeding $10,000 supports jurisdiction unless the court can say with legal certainty that damages cannot exceed that threshold.

Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Algona v. Insurance Department · filed 1977-03-17(a)

To place itself within the jurisdictional limits of Section 1331(a), petitioner has alleged injury in excess of $10,000.00, noting that the Commissioner could assess a fine of up to $50,000.00 for the purported violation of Chapter 507B. Unable to say with “legal ... certainty” that petitioner would not be damaged in excess of $10,000.00, the Court confronts a “case of controversy” that cannot be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331’s historical amount requirement, a stipulated valuation supports jurisdiction when the court independently finds the estimate reasonable and made in good faith.

Duncan v. Andrus · filed 1977-03-22

The parties have stipulated that the amount in controversy, exclusive of costs and interests, exceeds the sum of $10,000 as to each named plaintiff. (Doc. # 64, p. 23.) The Court has independently examined this stipulation and has concluded that its estimate of the amount in controversy is reasonable and made in good faith in view of the rights involved in this action. Accordingly, the Court determines that it has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a) requires both a federal question and damages exceeding $10,000 in controversy.

Murphy v. State Bd. of Law Exam. for Com. of Pa. · filed 1977-03-29(a)

... U.S.C. § 1331(a) requires both a federal question as well as a claim of damages in the jurisdictional amount in excess of $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under former Section 1331(a), jurisdiction exists over a claim requiring interpretation and application of a federal statute when the amount in controversy is reasonably alleged to exceed $10,000.

Sasse v. Ottley · filed 1977-05-05(a)

Jurisdiction is properly invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) as this case involves the interpretation and application of a federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(18), and plaintiffs reasonably allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 exclusive of interest and costs.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under former Section 1331, a claim arising under ERISA satisfied federal-question jurisdiction when more than $10,000 was in controversy.

Cicatello v. Brewery Workers Pension Fund · filed 1977-06-17

In addition, although plaintiff does not mention it in his papers, this court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, since this action is brought under a federal statute and the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement, a federal claim below $10,000 could not support jurisdiction.

Director, Edward J. Meyer Memorial Hospital v. Stetz · filed 1977-07-06

Since the claim which' is asserted by the Director and is the subject of the third-party claim does not reach the $10,000 jurisdictional amount required under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction may be asserted. Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction over either the original or the third-party claim.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331’s historical amount requirement, a claim for $163 plus declaratory and injunctive relief fails when it appears to a legal certainty that the total controversy is worth less than $10,000.

Gonzalez v. Young · filed 1977-07-15

At the onset, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was properly rejected by the district court because the amount in controversy did not exceed $10,000.00. Gonzalez sought only $163.00 in damages, along with declaratory and injunctive relief. Thus, it appears “to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under Section 1331's former amount requirement, a Title IX claim survives dismissal when the court cannot determine to the requisite certainty that the amount in controversy is inadequate.

Alexander v. Yale University · filed 1977-12-21

As far as this plaintiff is concerned, defendant’s attendant jurisdictional objection lacks compelling force. ... the Court cannot hold with requisite certainty in this instance that the amount in controversy is inade ... quate to support proceedings under the general federal question grant of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A good-faith allegation that more than $10,000 is in controversy satisfies Section 1331’s historical amount requirement.

Va. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors v. Kreps · filed 1978-01-24

Because plaintiffs have made good-faith allegations of at least $10,000 as the amount in controversy, ... the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over an interpleader action concerning the nature or operation of federal tax liens when more than the historical jurisdictional amount is in controversy.

St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Stone · filed 1978-02-21

For the reasons stated herein, we hold that the District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to entertain the Trust Company's interpleader action. ... Since the amount in controversy in this action clearly exceeds $10,000 and involves “matters directly affecting the . . . operation of (federal tax) liens,” ... we are convinced the District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the Trust Company's interpleader action.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction over substantial Lanham Act claims when more than $10,000 is in controversy.

Ives Laboratories, Inc. v. Darby Drug Co., Inc. · filed 1978-08-02(a)

This court has jurisdiction of the Lanham Act claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) and, since more than $10,000 is in controversy, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331’s amount-in-controversy requirement is not met by damages asserted without factual basis, in bad faith, and solely to obtain federal jurisdiction.

Christensen v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. · filed 1978-08-23

This Court concludes that any damages plaintiff may have suffered fall far short of the required jurisdictional amount of over $10,000; that the damages claimed in the complaint are without any factual basis, were not claimed in good faith, but were made solely for the purpose of obtaining federal jurisdiction. This Court therefore has no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (or under § 1331).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331 requires an allegation of the applicable amount in controversy for purely statutory claims against nonfederal defendants.

Bush v. Bays · filed 1978-11-22

If jurisdiction for plaintiffs’ purely statutory claims may only be found under § 1331, then plaintiffs’ complaint does not properly allege jurisdiction against any but the federal defendant because it does not contain an allegation of the requisite amount in controversy.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to a state statute when the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.

Aldens, Inc. v. Miller · filed 1979-03-05(a)

Because the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $10,000 and the action involves the validity of a state statute under the Constitution, the Court finds it has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331's former amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied for statutory claims when plaintiffs show that compliance with the challenged measure may cost them more than $10,000 in federal-program funds.

Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Ohio v. Rhodes · filed 1979-09-12

nearly all of the plaintiffs receive far more than $10,000.00 per year under various federal programs such as Title X of the Public Health Service Act, which they allege may be lost if they comply with the allegedly unconstitutional strictures of the Meshel amendment. The plaintiffs have therefore established jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 with regard to their statutory claims.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1331(a)’s former amount-in-controversy requirement applies to a Social Security Act claim, so a plaintiff seeking no damages cannot rely on that claim alone for jurisdiction.

Peske v. Tangedahl · filed 1980-04-14(a)

A Social Security Act claim would itself vest jurisdiction in a federal court if the amount in controversy exceeded $10,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (1976). In the present suit, however, Peske seeks no damages.