15 U.S.C. § 3007
Jurisdiction and venue
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction over any civil action under this chapter, without regard to the citizenship of the parties or the amount in controversy.
A civil action under this chapter may be brought in any district court of the United States for a district located in the host State or the off-track State, and all process in any such civil action may be served in any judicial district of the United States.
The jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States pursuant to this section shall be concurrent with that of any State court of competent jurisdiction located in the host State or the off-track State.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1987–2009 · leading case: Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enter., LLC, 2009 OK 6 (Okla. 2009).
Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enter., LLC, 2009 OK 6 (Okla. 2009). “2001, § 152(1) (the state governmental tort claims law defining "action" as a proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction by which one party brings a suit against another); 15 U.S.C. § 3007 (providing for jurisdiction over civil action involving interstate horse racing in…”
Sterling Suffolk Racecourse Ltd. P'ship v. Burrillville Racing Ass'n, Inc., 989 F.2d 1266 (1st Cir. 1993). “See 15 U.S.C. § 3007 (b). It further provides that jurisdiction is appropriate only in the courts of the host state or the off-track state.”
Griffith v. Choctaw Casino of Pocola, 2009 OK 51 (Okla. 2009). “[29] The federal statute, 15 U.S.C. § 3007 (1978), provides for jurisdiction over a civil action involving interstate horse racing in the federal district court in the host state or the off-track state concurrent with that of any state court of competent jurisdiction located in…”
Sterling Suffolk Racecourse Ltd. P'ship v. Burrillville Racing Ass'n, 802 F. Supp. 662 (D.R.I. 1992). “Along similar lines, venue for any action commenced under the IHA is appropriate only in the district court of the host state or the off-track state, 15 U.S.C. § 3007 (b), while concurrent jurisdiction of state courts is provided only in the host state or the offtrack state, 15…”
New Suffolk Downs Corp. v. Rockingham Venture, Inc., 656 F. Supp. 1190 (D.N.H. 1987). “15 U.S.C. § 3007 . If damages are sought, they are to be computed based on formulas derived from the betting systems in use at either the host racing system or the offtrack betting office.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.