09.01.22
Tuesday, August 30, 2022
7:33 AM
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
a. Court's power over the particular kind of case
b. State courts have general jurisdiction
c. There are a few matters - patent cases - which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over
d. Subject Matter Jurisdiction- Matters are either
i. Exclusive Federal Court Jurisdiction Grants
ii. State Court's General Jurisdiction
iii. BothDiversity Jurisdiction
1332
Federal Question
1331
Other non-exclusive Grants of Federal Jurisdiction
e. Constitution Article III outlines the powers of the courts and their jurisdiction
• Federal Jurisdiction Question
○ 28 U.S.C 1331: The District Courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States
○ Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Mottley : District Federal Court
 Appellant and Appellees
 Facts:
□ Railroad Contractual agreed to provide free passes to the Mottleys in exchange for
being released from all damage claims potentially spawning from a train car
collision. All parties were citizens of Kentucky, so Federal Question Jurisdiction was
the matter at hand.
 Issue: Whether the act of Congress- forbidding the giving of free passes or free
transportation prohibits the contract
□ Act passed on June 29, 1906
 Whether the Act is in violation with the fifth amendment in regard to depriving the
plaintiff's of their property without due process of law
 Justice Moody raises the question of subject matter jurisdiction in accordance with the
constitutional violation alleged in the complaint
□ A suit arises under the Constitutional laws of the United States only when the
plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws
or that Constitution
® It is not enough that the plaintiff anticipate a defense to his cause of action, and
assert that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of
the United States.
 Most States□ Supreme Court
□ Court of Appeals
□ Circuit Courts
□ Trial Courts- District
 Federal□ Supreme Court
□ Circuit Court
□ Trial Court
 Diversity Jurisdiction: no plaintiff share state citizenship with any defendant
 Federal Question Jurisdiction- the plaintiff's cause of action must arise from the
Constitution Laws of the United States
 The complaint asserted no Federal causes of action. However, they anticipated the railroad
defense by usage of the 1906 Act.
 Cases: Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank and Boston & M. Consol. Copper & S. Min.
Co. v. Montana Ore Purchasing Co.
 The complaint must allege that the plaintiff deserves relief because the defendant violated
federal law.
 The decision of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded with instructions to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
American Well Works Company v. Layne & Bowler Company and Mahlon E. Layne
Issue:
The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts over this dispute depends on whether this is a
dispute arising under the federal patent law or under state defamation law. Does a suit arise
under the law that creates the cause of action?
Rule:
A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.
Analysis:
Plaintiff alleges that it owns, manufactures, and sells a certain pump, has or has applied for a
patent for it, and that the pump is known as the best in the market. The plaintiff alleges the
defendant has libeled and slandered the plaintiff's title to the pump, and that without probable
cause the defendant has brought about suits against some parties who are using the plaintiff's
pump and threatening all parties who use it with lawsuits. Actual damage to the plaintiff is
alleged to be $50,000, and punitive damages to the same amount are asked. The matter of the
plaintiff's action arising from the damages caused by persuasion, threats, or by falsehood. These
allegations are sufficient to prove the conduct and effect, leaving the defendant to justify. A suit
for damages to business caused by a threat to sue under the patent law is not itself a suit under
patent law. Whether the act is wrong of not depends upon the law of the state where the act is
done, not upon the patent law, and therefore the suit arises under the law of the state.
Conclusion:
The Federal District Court's judgement is reversed.
Can the case still be brought in state court for the libel and slander allegations?
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Larry James Christopher Thompson, et ux., et al.
Issue:
The question is whether the incorporation of a federal standard in a state-law private action,
when congress has intended that there not be a federal private action for violations of a federal
standard, makes the action one "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the United
States."
Rule:
The suit must [arise] under the law that creates the cause of action. If the plaintiff's right to relief
depends necessarily on a substantial question of federal law, then the complaint would have
federal jurisdiction and the defendants the right to remove the action to federal courts.
Analysis:
An action was brought by Thompson and the MacTavishes, both of whom resided outside of the
United States. The complaints were filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Hamilton County,
Ohio. Each complaint alleged a child was born with deformities as a result of the mother's
ingestion of Bendectin during pregnancy. The recoveries of damages was requested in five of the
six counts on the basis of negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, fraud, and gross
negligence. Count IV alleged that the drug Bendectin was misbranded in violation of the FDCA
Act, because its labeling did not provide adequate warning that its use was potentially dangerous.
The defendant filed a motion for removal from the state court to the Federal District Court
alleging that the action was "founded, in part, on the alleged claim arising under the laws of the
United States." Both cases were consolidated following the removal. The respondents filed a
motion to remand the case to the state court on the ground that federal court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction. The Federal District Court denied this motion and granted the petitioner's
motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
reversed. The reversal stated "Plaintiff's cause of action referred to the FDCA merely as one of
the available criterion for determining whether Merrell Dow was negligent." The Supreme Court
granted review and affirmed the improper removal to the Federal Court.
Article III gives the federal courts power to hear cases "arising under" federal statutes, which
may extend to all cases in which a federal question is "an ingredient" of the action. The question
of "arising under" federal statutes must be determined by reference to the "well-pleaded
complaint." A defense that raises a federal question is inadequate to confer federal jurisdiction,
since the defendant may remove a case only if the claim could have been brought in federal
court. The vast majority of cases are covered by Justice Holmes' statement that a "suit arises
under the law that creates the action."
Conclusion:
The argument of the federal jurisdiction question being appropriate is found favorable when "it
appears that some substantial, disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of one of
the well-pleaded state claims." The claim in question did not state a claim "arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States" necessary to the claim's substance.