22 U.S.C. § 283gg

Jurisdiction of United States courts

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

For the purposes of any civil action which may be brought within the United States, its territories or possessions, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, by or against the Corporation in accordance with the agreement, the Corporation shall be deemed to be an inhabitant of the Federal judicial district in which its principal office within the United States or its agent appointed for the purpose of accepting service or notice of service is located, and any such action to which the Corporation shall be a party shall be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States, and the district courts of the United States, including the courts enumerated in section 460 of title 28, shall have original jurisdiction of any such action. When the Corporation is a defendant in any action in a State court, it may at any time before the trial thereof remove the action into the appropriate district court of the United States by following the procedure for removal provided in section 1446 of title 28.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2008–2009 · leading case: Vila v. Inter-Am. Inv., Corp., 536 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Vila v. Inter-Am. Inv., Corp., 536 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 2008). “The case was subsequently removed to this Court by the defendant, Inter-American Investment Corporation (“IIC”), pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 283gg (2000), which confers original jurisdiction to this Court over suits brought against the IIC.”

Vila v. Inter-Am. Inv. Corp., 570 F.3d 274 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “On October 26, 2006, Vila sued the IIC for breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, defamation, and tortious interference with a prospective business advantage.”

Vila v. Inter-Am. Inv. Corp., 583 F.3d 869 (D.C. Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “On October 26, 2006, Vila sued the IIC for breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, defamation, and tortious interference with a prospective business advantage.”

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.