22 U.S.C. § 283f

Jurisdiction and venue of actions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 22 CasesGoogle Scholar

For the purpose of any action which may be brought within the United States, its Territories or possessions, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico by or against the Bank in accordance with the agreement, the Bank shall be deemed to be an inhabitant of the Federal judicial district in which its principal office in the United States is located, and any such action at law or in equity to which the Bank shall be a party shall be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States, and the district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction of any such action. When the Bank is a defendant in any such action, it may, at any time before the trial thereof, remove such action from a State court into the district court of the United States for the proper district by following the procedure for removal of causes otherwise provided by law.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1997–2009 · leading case: Atkinson v. Kestell

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Atkinson v. Kestell (1997) dcd · cites it 3× “§ 1334 (b) This statutory section is entitled “Bankruptcy cases and proceedings” and states that “the district courts shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11 [Bankruptcy], or arising in or related to cases under title 11.”

Freeman Decorating Co. v. Encuentro Las Americas Trade Corp. (2009) ca5 · cites it 2× “Freeman’s first argument fails because 22 U.S.C. §§ 283f, 283gg, the statutes granting federal jurisdiction over the Bank and the Investment Corp.”

Janet E. Atkinson v. The Inter-American Development Bank (1998) cadc “22 U.S.C. § 283f. This latter obstacle — the likely inability to proceed in state court — would not of itself hinder appellant’s garnishment proceeding, as a federal court can adjudicate garnishment proceedings by applying the local statutory scheme.”

Inter-American Development Bank v. NEXTG Telecom Ltd. (2007) nysd “The Court has jurisdiction over actions brought by IDB pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 283f. 2 . AXS formerly was known as AES Communications Bolivia, S.”

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.