28 U.S.C. § 1337

Commerce and antitrust regulations; amount in controversy, costs

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies: Provided, however, That the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of an action brought under section 11706 or 14706 of title 49, only if the matter in controversy for each receipt or bill of lading exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.(b) Except when express provision therefor is otherwise made in a statute of the United States, where a plaintiff who files the case under section 11706 or 14706 of title 49, originally in the Federal courts is finally adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the sum or value of $10,000, computed without regard to any setoff or counterclaim to which the defendant may be adjudged to be entitled, and exclusive of any interest and costs, the district court may deny costs to the plaintiff and, in addition, may impose costs on the plaintiff.(c) The district courts shall not have jurisdiction under this section of any matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade under chapter 95 of this title.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 931; Pub. L. 95–486, § 9(a), Oct. 20, 1978, 92 Stat. 1633; Pub. L. 96–417, title V, § 505, Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1743; Pub. L. 97–449, § 5(f), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2442; Pub. L. 104–88, title III, § 305(a)(3), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 944.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 41(8), (23) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 24, pars. 8, 23, 36 Stat. 1092, 1093; Oct. 22, 1913, ch. 32, 38 Stat. 219).

Words “civil action” were substituted for “suits”, in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1995—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 104–88 substituted “11706 or 14706” for “11707”.

1983—Pub. L. 97–449 substituted “section 11707 of title 49” for “section 20(11) of part I of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 20(11)) or section 219 of part II of such Act (49 U.S.C. 319)” wherever appearing.

1980—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 96–417 added subsec. (c).

1978—Pub. L. 95–486 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted proviso giving the district courts original jurisdiction of actions brought under sections 20(11) and 219 of the Interstate Commerce Act when the amounts in controversy for each receipt exceed $10,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and added subsec. (b).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1995 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–88 effective Jan. 1, 1996, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1301 of Title 49, Transportation.

Effective Date of 1980 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–417 effective Nov. 1, 1980, and applicable with respect to civil actions pending on or commenced on or after such date, see section 701(a) of Pub. L. 96–417, set out as a note under section 251 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2,236 cases (101 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. (1978) scotus · cites it 6× “Appellees' complaint alleges jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1337 (1976 ed.), which provides for original jurisdiction in the district courts over "any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce against…”

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) scotus · cites it 4× “In that case, we were faced with the interrelated questions of "whether the Amtrak Act can be read to create a private right of action to enforce compliance with its provisions; whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under the terms of the Act to entertain such a suit…”

Leedom v. Kyne (1958) scotus · cites it 10× “Petitioners, members of the Board, concede here that the District Court had jurisdiction of the suit under § 24 (8) of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. § 1337 , unless the review provisions of the National Labor Relations Act destroyed it.”

Eugene Joseph White, Cross-Appellee v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. And Local 580, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, (1990) ca6 · cites it 8× “In his complaint, White invoked the jurisdiction of the district court pursuant to both section 301 of the LMRA and 28 U.S.C. § 1337 . 3 On June 14, 1988, after appellant had presented his case over the course of seven days, the district court granted Anchor’s and Local 580’s…”

Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion (1985) scotus · cites it 4× “[5] The Court of Appeals transferred the case to the District Court pursuant to 28 U.”

Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Ass'n v. Benjamin (1991) innd · cites it 20× “§ 185 , the general jurisdictional grant of 28 U.S.C. § 1337 , and the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction with regard to several state common law claims.”

Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros. (1955) scotus · cites it 8× “The union brought proceedings to *513 remove the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, claiming that the employer's petition alleged facts bringing the case within the original jurisdiction of the District Court as a civil action arising…”

Val's Auto Sales & Repair, LLC v. Garcia (2019) kyed · cites it 10× “First, regarding federal question jurisdiction, Defendants Garcia and Progressive argue the following: [This] action is a civil suit which may be removed to this Court by the Garcia and Progressive pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1337 (a) in that the Plaintiff alleges a claim involving…”

Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. (1988) scotus · cites it 2× “[3] Respondent points out that jurisdiction in this case was alleged to rest both on the existence of an antitrust claim, see 28 U. S. C. § 1337 , and diversity of citizenship, see 28 U.”

Eva Hall v. North American Van Lines, Inc. George Correa All City Moving and Storage (2007) ca9 · cites it 3× “The Carriers removed the case from state court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1337 (a) and 1441(b), asserting that Hall’s complaint framed a cause of action under the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.”

Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization (1979) scotus · cites it 2× “§ 1334 (bankruptcy); 28 U. S. C. § 1337 (Acts of Congress regulating commerce).”

Villanueva v. Account Discovery Systems, LLC (2015) cod · cites it 4× “Plaintiff also asserts that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1337 . Compl. [# 1] ¶ 2. Under 28 U.”

Show all 2,236 citing cases →

— 28 U.S.C. § 1337(2000) — 1 case

Titan Wheel Corp. of Iowa v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2003) iasd

— 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a) — 5 cases

Reynolds v. Gables Residential Services, Inc. (2006) flmd

Old Dominion Freight Line v. Allou Distributors, Inc. (2000) nyed

MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc. (1995) ca3

AMERICAN RY. AND AIRWAY SUP'RS v. Soo Line R. Co. (1988) mnd

American Railway & Airway Supervisors Ass'n v. Soo Line Railroad (1988) mnd

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.