Duncan v. Stuetzle

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[I]t must be clear from the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint that there is a federal question.”
• “[I]n order for a complaint to state a claim ‘arising under’ federal law, it must be clear from the face of the plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint that there is a federal question.”
• “Because section 27 1338 contains the same ‘arising under’ language as appears in section 1331, the Supreme Court has held that the principles outlined in the section 1331 cases are equally applicable to section 28 1338.”
• “Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal,” statutes conferring jurisdiction are “strictly construed and federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).