28 U.S.C. § 1366
Construction of references to laws of the United States or Acts of Congress
For the purposes of this chapter, references to laws of the United States or Acts of Congress do not include laws applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1988–2023 · leading case: Pure Wafer Inc. v. City of Prescott
Pure Wafer Inc. v. City of Prescott (2017)
“Declining to rule on the defendants’ arguments that complex state law questions and predominance of state law issues called for us to uphold the dismissal of the state law claims, we held: The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is within the discretion of the 2…”
D.C. Ass'n of Chartered Pub. Sch. v. Dist. of Columbia (2019)
“Section 1366 then denies the School Reform Act the status of a "law of the United States" for purposes of the federal-question statute.”
United States v. Albert E. Mills. United States of America v. Kenneth B. Wonson (1992)
“Congress also expressly provided in the 1970 Court Reform Act that for purposes of the general jurisdiction of the federal courts references to “laws of the United States or Acts of Congress” do not encompass “laws applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia”, see 28…”
CareFirst, Inc. v. Taylor (2017)
“The Commissioner contends that the court lacks federal question subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims because *737 GHMSI’s congressionally enacted charter is a local law of the District of Columbia, not a law of the United States. He acknowledges, however, that…”
Madley v. United States Parole Commission (2002)
“§§ 1257 (certiorari), 1451 (removal), 2113 (other Supreme Court review under chapter 133), or that laws limited in effect to the District would be deemed not federal laws for certain purposes, 28 U.S.C. § 1366 (chapter 85 district court jurisdiction), or that the District itself…”
District of Columbia Common Cause v. District of Columbia (1988)
“statute provides that no expenditure may be made unless it is authorized by Congress; (3) Congress did not authorize D.”
AstraZeneca AB v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. (2016)
“The court has supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1366 . II. BACKGROUND 1 A. Parties Plaintiff AstraZeneca AB is a company operating and existing under the laws of Sweden with its principal place of business in Sodertalje, Sweden.”
Sun Dun, Inc. of Washington v. Coca-Cola Co. (1990)
“Defendants’ motions to dismiss Count VI of the Amended Complaint are therefore granted. The Pendent Claims The Exercise of Pendent Jurisdiction The Court must next consider whether to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the claims set forth by Sun Dun which arise under the D.”
Roth v. District of Columbia Courts (2001)
“Defendant argues that 28 U.S.C. § 1366 applies to exclude this controversy from this Court’s jurisdiction.”
DC v. Exxon Mobil Corporation (2023)
“” 28 U.S.C. § 1366 . It follows that the District’s suit, which arises under the CPPA, does not arise under the “laws … of the United States.”
Visintine v. Saab Auto. AB (1995)
“Defendants' alternate argument that Zahn has been effectively overruled by the recently-enacted supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1366 , see In re Abbott Labs.”
Lucas, Allan v. US Govt (2001)
“1984); 28 U.S.C. § 1366 . We need not decide whether this alternative jurisdictional ground applies.”
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.