Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley (1908)
green
· 4,757 citation events
across 144 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1909 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
190919672026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
yellow
In re: Grand Jury Subpoena (2019)
See Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 , 152, 29 S.Ct. 42 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) ("Neither party has questioned that jurisdiction, but it is the duty of this court to see to it that the jurisdiction of the circuit court, which is defined and limited by statute, is not exceeded.").
"Neither party has questioned that jurisdiction, but it is the duty of this court to see to it that the jurisdiction of the circuit court, which is defined and limited by statute, is not exceeded."
yellow
Yuille v. American Home Mortgage Services, Inc. (2012)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 , 29 S.Ct. 42 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) (”[n]either party has questioned ... jurisdiction, but it is the duty of this court to see to it that the jurisdiction of the circuit court, which is defined and limited by statute, is not exceeded.
”[n]either party has questioned ... jurisdiction, but it is the duty of this court to see to it that the jurisdiction of the circuit court, which is defined and limited by statute, is not exceeded. This duty we have frequently performed of our own motion."
yellow
William C. Kelly, III v. United States (1994)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 , 29 S.Ct. 42, 43 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) (“Neither party has questioned that jurisdiction, but it is the duty of this court to see to it that the jurisdiction of the circuit court, which is defined and limited by statute, is not exceeded.
“Neither party has questioned that jurisdiction, but it is the duty of this court to see to it that the jurisdiction of the circuit court, which is defined and limited by statute, is not exceeded. This duty we have frequently performed on our own motion.”
yellow
Chestnut v. Merrill (2019)
Standard of Review Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) states that "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Indeed, "it is incumbent upon [a] federal court[ ] ... to constantly examine the basis of jurisdiction, doing so on [its] own motion if necessary." Save the Bay, Inc. v. U.S. Army , 639 F.2d 1100 , 1102 (5th Cir. 1981) (citing Rule 12(h)(3) ); see also Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottl…
"[I]t is the duty of this court to see to it that the jurisdiction of the circuit court, which is defined and limited by statute, is not exceeded."
P. 12(h)(3)); see also Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908) (“[I]t is the duty of this court to see to it that the jurisdiction of the circuit court, which is defined and limited by statute, is not exceeded.
“[I]t is the duty of this court to see to it that the jurisdiction of the circuit court, which is defined and limited by statute, is not exceeded. This duty we have frequently performed of our own motion.”
green
City of McComb Ms v. Myers (2004)
See, e.g., Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 , 118 S.Ct. 921 , 139 L.Ed.2d 912 (1998) (“A defense is not part of a plaintiffs properly pleaded statement of his or her claim.”); Mottley, 211 U.S. at 152 (“It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action, and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States.”).
“It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action, and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States.”
green
Wright v. Musanti (2018)
Co. v. Mottley , 211 U.S. 149 , 152, 29 S.Ct. 42 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) ("Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, ... a suit 'arises under' federal law ... 'only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].' ") (alteration in original).
"Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, ... a suit 'arises under' federal law ... 'only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].' "
green
In Re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation (2017)
“The existence or expectation of a federal defense is insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction.”
green
Firstenberg v. City of Santa Fe (2012)
See Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 , 29 S.Ct. 42 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) (“It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action, and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution.... ”); Cal. Shock Trauma Air Rescue v. State Comp.
“It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action, and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution.... ”
Under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, “a suit arises under federal law ‘only when the plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based’ on federal law.” Schmeling v. NORDAM, 97 F.3d 1336, 1339 (10th Cir.1996) (quoting Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 , 29 S.Ct. 42 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908)); see also Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction § 5.2.3, at 295 (6th ed. 2012) (“[I]t must be clear from the face of the plaintiffs complai…
“[I]t must be clear from the face of the plaintiffs complaint that there is a federal question.”
green
Weckesser v. Chicago Bridge & Iron (2008)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 , 29 S.Ct. 42 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) (“[A] suit arises under the Constitution and 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.”).
“[A] suit arises under the Constitution and 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.”
green
Hoskins v. Bekins Van Lines (2003)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 , 29 S.Ct. 42 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) (“[A] suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution.”).
“[A] suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution.”
green
Anderson v. John Morrell & Co. (1987)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 , 29 S.Ct. 42 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) (“well-pleaded complaint rule”); Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 , 397 n. 2, 101 S.Ct. 2424 , 2427 n. 2, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981).
“well-pleaded complaint rule”
green
Anderson v. John Morrell & Company (1987)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 , 29 S.Ct. 42 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) ("well-pleaded complaint rule"); Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 , 397 n. 2, 101 S.Ct. 2424 , 2427 n. 2, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981).
"well-pleaded complaint rule"
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908), and whether a plaintiff has standing to seek a preliminary injunction implicates subject matter jurisdiction, see, e.g., City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 , 105–10 (1983).
green
City of Philadelphia v. Kevin Hand (2026)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908); Holmes Grp., 535 U.S. at 830, 832 ).
green
Boitet v. Perry (2023)
Cf Mottley, 211 U.S. at 152 (“It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action, and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States.”).
“It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action, and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States.”
green
United States v. Armijo-Banda (2018)
Co. v. Mottley , 211 U.S. 149 , 152, 29 S.Ct. 42 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) ; see also Wilson v. Carr , 41 F.2d 704 , 706 (9th Cir. 1930) ("[I]f the order is void on its face for want of jurisdiction, it is the duty of this and every other court to disregard it."). 7 In Mendoza-Lopez -which recognized a due process right to collaterally challenge a prior removal order as a predicate to a § 1326 charge-the Supreme Court analogized fundamental unfairness in removal proceedings to t…
"[I]f the order is void on its face for want of jurisdiction, it is the duty of this and every other court to disregard it."
green
United States v. Lopez-Urgel (2018)
Co. v. Mottley , 211 U.S. 149 , 152, 29 S.Ct. 42 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) ; See also Wilson v. Carr , 41 F.2d 704 , 706 (9th Cir. 1930) ("[I]f the order is void on its face for want of jurisdiction, it is the duty of this and every other court to disregard it."). 7 In Mendoza-Lopez -which recognized a due process right to collaterally challenge a prior removal order as a predicate to a § 1326 charge-the Supreme Court analogized fundamental unfairness in removal proceedings to t…
"[I]f the order is void on its face for want of jurisdiction, it is the duty of this and every other court to disregard it."
green
Veneruso v. Mount Vernon Neighborhood Health Center (2013)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 , 29 S.Ct. 42 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) (“It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges. some anticipated defense to his cause of action and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States.”).
“It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges. some anticipated defense to his cause of action and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States.”
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 , 29 S.Ct. 42 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) (“[A] suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution.”).
“[A] suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution.”
green
Parlin v. DynCorp International, Inc. (2008)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 , 29 S.Ct. 42 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) (“It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action, and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States.”); see also Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 9-11 , 103 S.Ct. 2841 , 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983).
“It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action, and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States.”
green
York v. Day Transfer Co. (2007)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 , 29 S.Ct. 42 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) (“[A] suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution.”).
“[A] suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution.”
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 , 29 S.Ct. 42, 43 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) (“Although such allegations show that *131 very likely, in the course of the litigation, a question under the Constitution would arise, they do not show that the suit, that is, the plaintiffs original cause of action arises under the Constitution”), or that a federal defense the defendant may raise is insufficient to defeat the claim.
“Although such allegations show that *131 very likely, in the course of the litigation, a question under the Constitution would arise, they do not show that the suit, that is, the plaintiffs original cause of action arises under the Constitution”
Federal question jurisdiction thus requires a federal 9 question to be “presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar 10 Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); see also Mottley, 211 U.S. at 152 (“It is not enough 11 that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action, and asserts that the 12 defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States.”).
“It is not enough 11 that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action, and asserts that the 12 defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States.”
green
Amanda M. Peidlow, n/k/a Marlana Rexford v. Peter T. Williams, Vera A. Williams, and Waska A. Williams Jr., N… (2020)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908) (“We do not deem it necessary, however, to consider either of these questions [raised on appeal], because, in our opinion, the court below was without jurisdiction of the cause.”). 18 Mansfield, 111 U.S. at 382 . -23- 7431 the appellate court: “On every . . . appeal the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction, first, of this court, and then of the court from which the record comes.
“We do not deem it necessary, however, to consider either of these questions [raised on appeal], because, in our opinion, the court below was without jurisdiction of the cause.”
green
Colarossi v. Harris (2019)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 , 29 S.Ct. 44 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) (“Although such allegations show that very likely, in the course of the litigation, a question under the Constitution would arise, they do not show that the suit, that is, the plaintiff’s original cause of action, arises under the Constitution.”).
“Although such allegations show that very likely, in the course of the litigation, a question under the Constitution would arise, they do not show that the suit, that is, the plaintiff’s original cause of action, arises under the Constitution.”
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908)).
green
Michael-John Tucker v. Michelle Seiler Tucker (2026)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908).
green
Kevin Gunter, on behalf of himself, the ad hoc committee of Tetlin tribal members, and disenfranchised shareh… (2026)
But a federal trial court shall grant leave to amend “freely [] when justice so requires.”91 And that rule “is particularly 87 Dkt. 37 at 32-33. 88 See Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). 89 See id.; Okla.
green
Acton Academy, a Texas Nonprofit Corporation v. Apogee Summit Colorado LLC, Tim Kennedy, an individual, and M… (2026)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908)) (internal quotations and alterations omitted); see also Devon Energy Prod.
green
Dawn Doran, Individually, and on behalf of the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Adnee Blyss Floyd, Deceased v.… (2026)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908)).
green
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA HOSPITALS AT CHAPEL HILL v. UNITED HEALTHCARE OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.; UNITED HE… (2026)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908).
green
Price v. Automotive Finance Corporation (2026)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908))).
green
Linden Police Department, et al. v. Wilson Baquero (2026)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908).
green
Jordan Lee Poulsen v. Aaron Poulsen (2025)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908) (“[A] suit arises under the Constitution and 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.”). 38 Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 39 Mims v. Arrow Fin.
“[A] suit arises under the Constitution and 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.”
green
Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper v. Nicholas J. Dubois; Mrs. Nicholas J Dubois, His Wife; and the Uni… (2025)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908).
“the mere existence of a federal tax lien does not suffice to present a federal question”
green
In re: Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and Mechanical Ventilator Products Litigation; James v. Philips, … (2025)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908); Buell v. Jarvis, No. CV 2025-0016, 2025 WL 857311 , at *2 (D.V.I.
“The Court has an independent and ongoing obligation to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over an action, and to raise the issue sua sponte even when the parties fail to raise it.”
green
Roberts v. Philips Respironics Inc (2025)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908); Buell v. Jarvis, No. CV 2025-0016, 2025 WL 857311 , at *2 (D.V.I.
“The Court has an independent and ongoing obligation to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over an action, and to raise the issue sua sponte even when the parties fail to raise it.”
green
King v. Cornerstone Medical Services (2025)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908); Buell v. Jarvis, No. CV 2025-0016, 2025 WL 857311 , at *2 (D.V.I.
“The Court has an independent and ongoing obligation to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over an action, and to raise the issue sua sponte even when the parties fail to raise it.”
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908) (“[A] suit arises under the Constitution and 7 laws of the United States only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows 8 that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution.”). 9 A motion to remand is the proper procedure for a plaintiff to challenge removal. 28 10 U.S.C. § 1447 .
“[A] suit arises under the Constitution and 7 laws of the United States only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows 8 that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution.”
green
(PC) Crane v. Lopez (2023)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908) (“[A] suit arises under the Constitution and 18 laws of the United States only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows 19 that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution.”). 20 A motion to remand is the proper procedure for a plaintiff to challenge removal. 28 21 U.S.C. § 1447 .
“[A] suit arises under the Constitution and 18 laws of the United States only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows 19 that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution.”
green
Ruiz v. Ringling College of Art and Design, Inc. (2023)
See Adventure Outdoors, 552 F.3d at 1295 ; see also Blab T.V. of Mobile, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., 182 F.3d 851, 854 (11th Cir. 1999) (“A case thus may be removed based on federal question jurisdiction ‘only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based’ on federal law”), quoting Louisville & Nasville R.R. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908); Kemp v. Int’l Business Machine Corp., 109 F.3d 708 , 712 (11th Cir. 1997) (“A ca…
“A case does not arise under federal law unless a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s complaint”
green
Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London Syndicate 1861, Subscribing to Policy No. ANV122398A v. Daileader (2023)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908) (“It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated (federal] defense to his cause of action. .. .”) The well-pleaded complaint rule applies in the removal context.
“It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated (federal] defense to his cause of action. .. .”
green
H&N Construction Inc v. Tarkett USA INC (2022)
See, e.g., City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 511 (1973) (observing that federal courts have a duty to ensure that their jurisdiction, “which is defined and limited by statute, is not exceeded”) (quoting Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908)); Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292 , 1299 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[A] court must zealously insure that jurisdiction exists over a case, and should itself raise the question of subject matter jurisdicti…
“[A] court must zealously insure that jurisdiction exists over a case, and should itself raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction at any point in the litigation where a doubt about jurisdiction arises.”
green
Gay v. United Services Automobile Association (2021)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). 14 USAA CIC’s Response (Dkt. 10) at 6. 15 See Salazar v. Allstate Tex. Lloyd’s, Inc., 455 F.3d 571, 575 (5th Cir. 2006) (“[W]here an entity has not properly been made a party in state court, removal jurisdiction cannot be premised on its presence in the action.”); Hous.
“[W]here an entity has not properly been made a party in state court, removal jurisdiction cannot be premised on its presence in the action.”
green
Dupervil v. Alliance Health Operations, LLC (2021)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908) (“[A] suit arises under the Constitution and 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.”).
“[A] suit arises under the Constitution and 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.”
green
Johnson v. Doe (2020)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908)); see also Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Indep.
“[A] suit arises under federal law if there appears on the face of the complaint some substantial, disputed question of federal law.”
green
(PC) Guillen v. Carrillo (2019)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 , 152 7 (1908) (“[A] suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the 8 plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that 9 Constitution.”). 10 Here, even though plaintiff’s pro se complaint does not cite specific constitutional 11 provisions, his “statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon” the 12 Constitution.
“[A] suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the 8 plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that 9 Constitution.”
green
Stewart v. Atwood (2012)
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 , 29 S.Ct. 42 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) (“a suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws of that Constitution.
“a suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws of that Constitution. It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action. ...”