CCG Toolkit V1.1
DOWNLOAD > https://urllio.com/2tcF9y
of action." Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U. S. 392, 395 (1946). Whether a claim arises under federal law must be determined by reference to the nature of the federal question involved. Id., p. 396. "The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction in a particular dispute will call for careful examination of the state of facts that exists and of the law applicable to those facts and to the particular claim asserted." Ibid. This is because the federal question labor of determining federal jurisdiction is at bottom one of state law, albeit federal law to which the state courts are `interested.'" Id., at 397. If the complaint alleges only ``garden-variety'' state law causes of action, it is unlikely that any single question will turn out to be the dispositive one. Accordingly, as this Court has observed many times, the most important event in the evolution of a claim is not the date upon which the plaintiff filed suit, but the date upon which the plaintiff's claim met the federal criteria for accepting such a suit for judicial resolution. See, e.g., Gully, supra, at 688, 692; Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U. S. 647, 652-653 (1963); cf. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U. S. 804, 809-810 (1986) (bracketed material added). The Federal Circuit in Swanson for some time identified claim development, not the filing date, as the critical event for jurisdictional purposes. See, e.g., Swanson Mfg. Co. v. Shaw, 730 F. 2d 1205, 1210 (CA Fed. 1984). Although in Textile Plant of Alabama, Inc. v. A. G. Spinks & Son, Inc., 623 F. 2d 54, 56 (CA 5 1980), the Court had stated in a slightly different way that the filing date determines the date on which the cause of action arises, that statement was made in the context of a different and easily resolved issue: whether a claim arises under federal law when the complaint invoking federal jurisdiction is filed or when the plaintiff obtains a final, valid judgment, see n. 1, supra. In answering that question, the Court noted that the dispute between the parties arose (and therefore the statute of limitations began to run, see pp. d2c66b5586