must be determined from the face of the plaintiffs complaint. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9-11, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 2846-47, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983). The Supreme Court enunciated the modem test in Franchise Tax Board, namely that “lower federal courts [have] jurisdiction to hear, originally or by removal from a state court, only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Id. at 27-28, 103 S.Ct. at 2856. The Supreme Court has narrowly construed the test to restrict removal. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986) (<HOLDING>). In the consolidated action of Burke, supra,
recognizing that every theory of relief must raise federal issue for claim to arise under federal law holding that merely alluding to federal law does not raise a federal question holding that federal law governs res judicata effect of an earlier federal judgment based on federal law holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court holding that a determination of whether the defendants actions constituted a taking under the louisiana constitution does not implicate any issues of federal law and thus does not provides a basis for a federal district court to exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction