Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg.

Holding "that the national interest in providing a federal forum for federal tax litigation is sufficiently substantial to support the exercise of federal-question jurisdiction."

Empire Healthchoice v. McVeigh

Holding that the federal government's "overwhelming interest in attracting able workers to the federal workforce" and "in the health and welfare of the federal workers upon whom it relies to carry out its functions" was insufficient to transform a "state-court-initiated tort litigation" into a "federal case"

Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson

Holding that private actors have no federal cause of action for a violation of the Federal Drug and Cosmetic Act

Emrich v. Touche Ross Co.

Holding proceedings and determinations of the courts are a matter of public record suitable for judicial notice

Eastman v. Marine Mechanical Corp.

Holding that state wrongful termination claim relying on federal statutes as source of public policy did not raise substantial federal question supporting removal jurisdiction because there would be a dramatic shift of litigation to federal courts and there was no disputed interpretation of a federal law at stake

Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc.

Holding federal law was not a necessary element of plaintiff's state claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy where complaint referred to Title VII as one basis for demonstrating public policy against employment discrimination, but also cited state constitution and state law that prohibited such discrimination

Lippitt v. Raymond James Fin. Services, Inc.

Holding that federal law was not "necessary element" of UCL claim, since plaintiff"does not have to rely on a violation of the Exchange Act nor an infraction of an NYSE rule or regulation to bring a UCL claim in California state court. He merely has to allege that Defendants' conduct was either unfair or fraudulent. . . . Rather, [plaintiff] seeks to use a state statute, namely California's Unfair Competition Law, as a vehicle to hold Defendants liable for misleading and deceptive practices . . ."

Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film, Corp.

Finding that even though the CBA "contain[ed] a paragraph that set[] forth time requirements governing the payment of wages after discharge," the question of whether a payment after discharge was timely "[was] controlled only by [section 201.5 of the Labor Code] and [did] not turn on whether the payment was timely under the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement"

Moore v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc.

Holding that a district court retained jurisdiction to award costs and attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, the federal removal statute, even though the court's remand order did not specifically mention attorney fees

Jairath v. Dyer

Holding that a claim of an Americans with Disabilities Act violation as an element of a state law cause of action was not sufficiently substantial to confer federal question jurisdiction

Section 1447 - Procedure after removal generally

Holding that with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"

Section 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission

Providing court-ordered monetary penalties against anyone who engages in conduct previously identified as prohibited in a final cease and desist order, but only if the violator acted with "actual knowledge that such act or practice is unfair or deceptive"

Section 1693 - Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

Defining electronic fund transfer

Section 1693m - Civil liability

Providing a good faith defense to claims related to consumer credit protection

Section 632 - Jurisdiction of United States courts; disposition by banks of foreign owned property

Providing for federal jurisdiction over suits arising out of transactions involving international banking

Section 1693a - Definitions

Defining PEFT

Section 1693q - Relation to State laws