Ninth Circuit· 2/21/1996

Duncan v. Stuetzle

Citations

76 F.3d 1480
96 Daily Journal DAR 1921
37 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1758
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1125
1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 2584

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).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

30 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

35 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.