18 U.S.C. § 2338
Exclusive Federal jurisdiction
The district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction over an action brought under this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2021 · leading case: People v. Pimentel
People v. Pimentel (2017)
“The statute is not expressly preempted by 18 USC § 2338 , which states that federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over actions brought under 18 USC part I, chapter 113B.”
Kaplan v. Hezbollah (2016)
“PROCEDURAL HISTORY Based on the events of July and August, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a complaint on April 8, 2009 against Hezbollah and North Korea under the Antiterrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2338 (a) and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.”
Estates of Ungar Ex Rel. Strachman v. Palestinian Authority (2001)
“In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 2338 provides that “[t]he district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction over an action brought under this chapter.”
Estate of Ungar Ex Rel. Strachman v. Palestinian Authority (2004)
“In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 2338 provides that “[t]he district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction over an action brought under this chapter.”
Smith v. Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (2003)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 2338 . As an initial matter, it is not self-evident that the events of September 11 fall within the statute’s definition of “international terrorism.”
Estates of Ungar Ex Rel. Strachman v. Pales. Auth. (2002)
“Having alleged one cause of action under 18 U.S.C. § 2338 and three accompanying Israeli causes of action under the CWO, this Court concludes that plaintiffs would be entitled to relief if the allegations in the amended complaint are true.”
United States v. Armin Harcevic (2021)
“The explicit statement in Article 3 that its protections are “a minimum” leads us to question whether the district court was correct in concluding 3 A § 2339A prosecution based upon violation of § 956 requires proof that the defendant provided material support or resources to…”
Estate of Ungar v. Orascom Telecom Holding S.A.E. (2008)
“The suit sought damages under the Antiterrorism Act (“ATA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2338 (a) (2000), which provides a cause of action for a U.”
Armendarez v. Glendale Youth Center, Inc. (2003)
“§ 13981 , for acts of terrorism under 18 U.S.C. § 2338 .”
Antonio Caballero v. Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (2021)
“The jurisdictional provision of the 19 ATA, 18 U.S.C. § 2338 , provides that federal district courts have exclusive 20 jurisdiction over claims under the ATA.”
O'Sullivan v. Deutsche Bank AG (2020)
“§ 1331 and 18 U.S.C. § 2338 . The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions carefully (including Notices of Supplemental Authority and responses thereto) and, for the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file their proposed Amended Complaint is denied.”
Ahmad v. Christian Friends of Israeli Communities (2015)
“citizens who live in the West Bank, appeal from the District Court’s' May 6, 2014 judgment granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which raised claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act (“ATA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2338 , and the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”), 28 U.”
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.