Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley

holding that federal issues interposed as a defense generally do not create a cause of action “arising under” federal law | holding that complaint may not invoke federal jurisdiction by embodying a reply to an anticipated federal defense | holding that subject-matter jurisdiction must exist in the plaintiffs original cause of action, regardless of the likelihood that a federal question will arise in the course of litigation | holding that “plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action” is what determines jurisdiction | holding that subject-matter jurisdiction must exist in the plaintiff's original cause of action, regardless of the likelihood that a federal question will arise during litigation | holding that anticipation of a federal defense may not be used to invoke this court’s general federal question jurisdiction | holding that federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is necessarily raised on the face of a well-pleaded complaint | holding that a federal question must appear in “the plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action” rather than “some anticipated defense to his cause of action” | holding that a cause of 18 action does not “arise under” under federal law because of an anticipated federal defense, in the 19 context of federal question jurisdiction | holding that subject-matter jurisdiction must exist in the plaintiff's original cause of action, regardless of the likelihood that a federal question will arise in the course of litigation | holding that subject-matter jurisdiction must exist in the plaintiff’s original cause of action, regardless of the likelihood that a federal question will arise in the course of litigation | holding that a plaintiff seeking to enforce a contract could not create federal question jurisdiction by alleging that a federal statute, which might invalidate the contract, was unconstitutional | holding that “plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action” is what determines jurisdiction | holding that federal jurisdiction must arise from the face of a well-pleaded complaint | holding a federal law defense to a state law claim does not confer federal question jurisdiction | noting that it is the duty of a federal court to ensure 23 that its jurisdiction granted by statute is not exceeded | noting that it is the duty of a 11 federal court to ensure that its jurisdiction granted by statute is not exceeded | noting that it is the duty of a federal court to ensure 4 that its jurisdiction granted by statute is not exceeded | noting that courts must “see to it” that the boundaries of jurisdiction are not exceeded | noting that courts have a duty to ensure that "jurisdiction ... defined and limited by statute, is not exceeded" | stating that Plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action must show that it is based upon [federal law] | noting that it is the duty of a federal court to ensure that its jurisdiction granted by statute 20 is not exceeded | noting that the question of jurisdiction may be raised on the court’s own motion | explaining that a federal question exists only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon the Constitution or laws of the United States | announcing the “well-pleaded complaint” rule: plaintiff may avoid federal jurisdiction by presenting only state law claims, even if defense raises federal question | ordering case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction despite absence of objection from either party to trial court’s previous adjudication of merits | observing that “a suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon” federal law | establishing the well-pleaded complaint rule by which jurisdiction under the general federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is determined by reference to the plaintiffs complaint alone | denying federal jurisdiction where the “Federal question” was m