28 U.S.C. § 102

Michigan

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

Michigan is divided into two judicial districts to be known as the Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan.

Eastern District

(a) The Eastern District comprises two divisions.

(1) The Southern Division comprises the counties of Genesee, Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, Saint Clair, Sanilac, Shiawassee, Washtenaw, and Wayne.

Court for the Southern Division shall be held at Ann Arbor, Detroit, Flint, and Port Huron.

(2) The Northern Division comprises the counties of Alcona, Alpena, Arenac, Bay, Cheboygan, Clare, Crawford, Gladwin, Gratiot, Huron, Iosco, Isabella, Midland, Montmorency, Ogemaw, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle, Roscommon, Saginaw, and Tuscola.

Court for the Northern Division shall be held at Bay City.

Western District

(b) The Western District comprises two divisions.

(1) The Southern Division comprises the counties of Allegan, Antrim, Barry, Benzie, Berrien, Branch, Calhoun, Cass, Charlevoix, Clinton, Eaton, Emmet, Grand Traverse, Hillsdale, Ingham, Ionia, Kalamazoo, Kalkaska, Kent, Lake, Leelanau, Manistee, Mason, Mecosta, Missaukee, Montcalm, Muskegon, Newaygo, Oceana, Osceola, Ottawa, Saint Joseph, Van Buren, and Wexford.

Court for the Southern Division shall be held at Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Lansing, and Traverse City.

(2) The Northern Division comprises the counties of Alger, Baraga, Chippewa, Delta, Dickinson, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Keweenaw, Luce, Mackinac, Marquette, Menominee, Ontonagon, and Schoolcraft.

Court for the Northern Division shall be held at Marquette and Sault Sainte Marie.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 219 cases (146 in the last 5 years), 1875–2026 · leading case: United States v. Ronald Myers, 854 F.3d 341 (6th Cir. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Ronald Myers, 854 F.3d 341 (6th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “Myers stole the three motor homes in two towns, both in the Western District of Michigan, see 28 U.S.C. § 102 (b). Myers then transported the motor homes out of Michigan, by either personally driving them across state lines, or instructing Nunley to do so.”

Jarpa v. Mumford, 211 F. Supp. 3d 706 (D. Maryland 2016). “See 28 U.S.C. § 102 ; 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (e). Finally, at least one of the named Respondents can provide Mr.”

Chandler v. United States, 171 F.2d 921 (1st Cir. 1948). · cites it 2× “1100 , and appeared as 28 U.S.C. § 102 (1946 ed.). It has recently been transferred to the Criminal Code, 18 U.”

KHODR v. Adduci, 697 F. Supp. 2d 774 (E.D. Mich. 2010). “28 U.S.C. § 102 ; 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (e). Moreover, the U.”

United States v. Flores, 289 U.S. 137 (1933). “And by § 41 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 102 , venue to try offenses “ committed upon the.”

Holder v. Curley, 749 F. Supp. 2d 644 (E.D. Mich. 2010). “See 28 U.S.C. § 102 (b)(1). The conviction challenged in the pending petition was rendered in York County, Pennsylvania, which lies in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.”

United States v. Chandler, 72 F. Supp. 230 (D. Mass. 1947). · cites it 2× “The defendant contends that Section 41 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 102 , applies only to crimes committed on the high seas and that the court has no jurisdiction in this case, despite the section's unambiguous language as follows: “The trial of all offenses committed…”

Tomoya Kawakita v. United States, 190 F.2d 506 (9th Cir. 1951). “Former Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 102 , Act of March 3, 1911, c.”

Ware v. United States, 971 F. Supp. 1442 (M.D. Fla. 1997). “28 U.S.C. § 102 . 8 . Specifically, Ware asked for: (1) $30,000,-000.”

United States v. Midwest Suspension & Brake, 824 F. Supp. 713 (E.D. Mich. 1993). “See 28 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(1). The government gave that State of Michigan a “notice of the commencement” of this action pursuant to § 113(b) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.”

679637 Ontario Ltd. v. Alpine Sign & Printer Supply, Inc., 218 F. Supp. 3d 572 (E.D. Mich. 2016). “See 28 U.S.C. § 102 (a). Alpine has not suggested otherwise.”

United States v. Cordova, 89 F. Supp. 298 (E.D.N.Y 1950). · cites it 3× “§ 7 , and (c) the venue statute for the prosecution of crimes within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.A. § 102 , now 18 U.S.C.A. § 3238 .”

Show all 219 citing cases →

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.