KUBASIAK

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Lowe v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, 723 F.2d 1173 (5th Cir. 1984)
  …jurisdiction than that taken by certain other courts, see St. Louis Southwestern at 941 (indicating conflict with Second and Seventh Circuit decisions) and United Airlines v. Division of Industrial Safety, 633 F. 2d 814 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 944, 102 S.Ct. 485, 70 L.Ed.2d 255 (1981), we do not read them as being in conflict with the analysis made in the text of this opinion or with the principle of Franchise Tax Board that federal question jurisdiction is not shown by a declaratory judgment…
• James K.T. Hunter and Gina F. Brandt v. United van Lines, 746 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1984)
  …is case would beyond any question be “collateral” and “attenuated.” Like the federal element we found insufficient to give rise to federal jurisdiction in United Air Lines v. Division of Industrial Safety, 633 F. 2d 814 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 944, 102 S.Ct. 485, 70 L.Ed.2d 255 (1981), the federal issue here would be “tangential to the task of construing the state [law] and may not even be conclusive.” Id. at 816. We would have, at most, only a “possible” federal question. Even if California…
• Robbins v. Reagan, 780 F.2d 37 (D.C. Cir. 1985)
  …on, this action does not present problems of state laws that integrate or rely on federal standards or refer to federal law for guidelines. See, e.g., United Airlines v. Division of Industrial Safety, 633 F. 2d 814, 816 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 944, 102 S.Ct. 485, 70 L.Ed.2d 255 (1981). Finally, the federal claim raised in this action is a substantial one. The substan-tiality standard is easily met — an arguably plausible claim must be allowed to proceed. Wright & Miller, supra, § 3564 at 70-…