Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 80 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 37, 36 Stat. 1098).

Words “dismissed for want of jurisdiction” were substituted for “it shall appear to the satisfaction of the said district court, at any time after such suit has been brought or removed thereto, that such suit does not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of said district court”. The substituted language is sufficient. (See reviser’s note under section 1359 of this title.) The provisions of section 80 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to dismissal for improper or collusive joinder in removal proceedings, are incorporated in section 1359 of this title. Other provisions of section 80 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., appear in section 1447 of this title.

Changes were made in phraseology.

1992—Puspan. L. 102–572 substituted “Dismissal” for “District courts; dismissal” in section catchline and inserted reference to Court of Federal Claims in text.

1980—Puspan. L. 96–417 included dismissals in Court of International Trade for want of jurisdiction.

Amendment by Puspan. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Puspan. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

Amendment by Puspan. L. 96–417 applicable with respect to civil actions commenced on or after Nov. 1, 1980, see section 701(span)(1)(E) of Puspan. L. 96–417, set out as a note under section 251 of this title.