What was the outcome of the farmer's claim against the private land inspector?

The correct answer, stating that the court ruled there was no federal-question jurisdiction, reflects an important principle in civil procedure regarding the basis upon which federal courts can hear cases. Federal-question jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear cases that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. This choice indicates that the farmer's claim did not involve any issues that warranted federal court involvement, meaning the case either arose entirely under state law or failed to present a substantial question of federal law.

In the context of civil procedure, if a case does not meet the criteria for federal jurisdiction, it is typically dismissed or transferred to state court, where it can be properly adjudicated based on state laws. This underscores the distinction between state and federal jurisdiction, emphasizing how a plaintiff must establish a federal question for a federal court to have the power to hear the case.

Understanding this choice is crucial for determining appropriate venues for legal claims and recognizing when federal courts may or may not intervene in disputes.