28 U.S.C. § 1
This Act may be cited as the ‘Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990’.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 89
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1928–2026 · leading case: United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557 (2001).
United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557 (2001). “See 28 U. S. C. § 1 . Consequently, the Court of Appeals' judgment was affirmed "with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court.”
Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013). “See 28 U. S. C. §1 (“The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.”
Firstar Bank, N.A., a Nat'l Banking Ass'n v. Lawrence J. Faul & Faul Chevrolet, Inc., an Illinois Corp., 253 F.3d 982 (1st Cir. 2001). “Federal jurisdiction was alleged to be present under 28 U.S.C. § 1 ^32. Firstar 1 identified its principal place of business as Ohio, while stating that Lawrence Faul is a citizen of Illinois and Faul Chevrolet was incorporated and had its principal place of business in Illinois.”
Dougherty, J., Aplt. v. Heller, K., 138 A.3d 611 (Pa. 2016). “, 28 U.S.C. §1 (“The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.”
United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980). “And in this Court, when one or more Justices are recused but a statutory quorum of six Justices eligible to act remains available, see 28 U. S. C. § 1 , the Court may continue to hear the case.”
Horton v. Bank One, N.A., 387 F.3d 426 (5th Cir. 2004). “28 U.S.C. § 1 , et seq.; see also Firstar, 253 F.”
Loumiet v. United States, 292 F. Supp. 3d 222 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “The Court has no reason to doubt that a four-justice majority opinion issued when the Supreme Court had satisfied the six-justice quorum represents controlling precedent.”
Am. Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. Ntsebeza, 128 S. Ct. 2424 (2008). “Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U.S.C. §1 , and since a majority of the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U.”
United States ex rel. Laughlin v. Eicher, 56 F. Supp. 972 (D.D.C. 1944). “Section 1 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1 , defines “District Court” by reference to Chapter 5 of the Judicial Code.”
Potter v. People, 56 V.I. 779 (2012). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1 ; U.S. Const, art. III. The People assert that the Attorney General replaced Campbell as Criminal Division Chief with Renee Gumbs-Carty, Esq.”
Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U.S. 149 (1973). “961 , and later became § 2072 of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. Section 2072 has been amended several times since 1947, but none of the amendments is relevant to our present discussion.”
Arizona v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Arizona, 459 U.S. 1191 (1983). “Because of this absence of a quorum, 28 U. S. C. § 1 , and since a majority of the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of Court, the judgment and order are affirmed under 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.