For the purpose of any action which may be brought within the United States or its Territories or possessions by or against the Fund or the Bank in accordance with the Articles of Agreement of the Fund or the Articles of Agreement of the Bank, the Fund or the Bank, as the case may be, 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 either the Fund or 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 either the Fund or 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
Chiriboga v. Int'l Bank for Reconstruction & Dev., 616 F. Supp. 963 (D.D.C. 1985).
· cites it 4× “§ 1332 (a)(3) and 22 U.S.C. § 286g. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(3) provides that “the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—.”
Mousel v. Knutson Mortg. Corp., 823 F. Supp. 658 (D. Minnesota 1993).
“Therefore, to the extent that Mousel relies upon that statute, his action must be dismissed.”
Gonzalez Flavell v. Kim (D.D.C. 2022).
· cites it 3× “§ 1331 , including the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (“Bretton Woods Act”), 22 U.S.C. § 286g, the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 (“IOIA”), 22 U.”
Gonzalez Flavell v. Int'l Bank for Reconstruction & Dev. (D.D.C. 2022).
· cites it 2× “§ 1330 (a), or the Bretton Woods Act of 1945, 22 U.S.C. § 286g. However, in assessing IBRD’s argument that the Court had “general federal question” jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s action pursuant to 28 U.”
S. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (D. Utah 2020).
· cites it 2× “In its Motion for Change of Venue, World Bank cites 22 U.S.C. § 286g as a basis to find venue proper in Washington, D.”
Leonard A. Sacks & Assocs. v. Int'l Monetary Fund, 26 F.4th 470 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
“See 22 U.S.C. § 286g. That same day, it also moved to dismiss the suit on immunity grounds pursuant to its Articles of Agreement, the relevant provisions of which are given effect in the United States by the Bretton Woods Act, 22 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.