motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

Receive alerts:
by e-mail
E-mail Your information will be added to a database with the sole purpose of serving your subscription. This database is the exclusive property of vLex Networks S.L. and will never be shared with any other company. By sending your request you accept the Data Protection Policy of vLex Networks S.L. I have read and accept the Terms of Use
via RSS

More than 10.000 documents for motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

- France v. France, (Ohio 2011)
Trial court did not err in granting Civ.R. 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because no facts were averred to or pleaded relative to Ohio being the proper forum under the UCCJEA; trial court abused its discretion in denying appellees Civ.R. 60(B) motion where all prongs of the GTE test were met.
- Ohio Supreme Court
- Patents/Preliminary Injunctions (IP Update, Vol. 14, No. 11, November 2011 - Part 1).
... when deciding preliminary injunction motions in patent infringement cases. Kimberly-Clark World... not "substantially meritless" or did not "lack substantial merit," Kimberly-Clark failed to estab.... Patents / Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction . Licensees Entitled to Seek Declaratory Judgment ... court erred in granting a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concludin...
- Mondaq Business Briefing
- Nbr. 2011, January 2011
- Sigler v. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., (Ohio 2007)
Affirming judgment entry granting motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Ohio Supreme Court

- Dargart v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., (Ohio 2005)
Decision and judgment entry. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction granted; plaintiff’s motion to amend pleadings granted; court’s March 23, 2005, decision and judgment entry amended to vacate judgment for plaintiff on whistleblower claim, and judgment for defendant on plaintiff’s claim for wrongful discharge claim.
- Ohio Supreme Court
- TattleTale Portable Alarm Sys., Inc. v. Calfee, Halter & Griswold, L.L.P., (Ohio 2009)
Because the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, in that patent law is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1338, the action was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal district courts. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting appellees' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Ohio Supreme Court
- Russell v. AT&T Corp., (Ohio 2008)
Trial court did not err when it granted Defendant telephone company’s Civ.R. 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction an action in which Plaintiff’s claims for relief are service related, which per R.C. 4901.01, et seq., are claims within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. Affirmed.
- Ohio Supreme Court
- Walters v. Metropolitan Ed. Enterprises, Inc., 519 U.S. 202 (1997)
... Walters intervened, Metropolitan filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction...
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Jones v. Jones, (Ohio 2008)
On appeal, Jay argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; that the trial court erred in finding for Evelyn as she failed to present sufficient evidence of unjust enrichment to meet her burden of proof; that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party; and, that the trial court erred in awarding attorneyÂ’s fees and costs to Evelyn without a presentation of evidence on the issue. Based on the following, we affirm in part, and reverse in part, the judgment of the trial court.
- Ohio Supreme Court
- Perkins Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Wooster City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., (Ohio 2009)
Trial court properly granted defendants' motion to dismiss declaratory judgment action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Ohio Supreme Court
- Hong Huang v. Secretary US Department of Homeland Security, et al, (11th Cir. 2012)
... Hong Huang appeals the dismissal of her action seeking review of the denial of her ...§ 1421(c), and the denial of her motion for reconsideration. On appeal, she argues that thhe district court did have jurisdiction under § 1421(c), even though she has not yet had ... The government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to ...
- Federal Circuits