U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART I— ORGANIZATION OF COURTS › Chapter CHAPTER 5— DISTRICT COURTS

28 U.S.C. § 103

Minnesota

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
Minnesota constitutes one judicial district comprising six divisions.(1) The First Division comprises the counties of Dodge, Fillmore, Houston, Mower, Olmsted, Steele, Wabasha, and Winona.

Court for the First Division shall be held at Winona.

(2) The Second Division comprises the counties of Blue Earth, Brown, Cottonwood, Faribault, Freeborn, Jackson, Lac qui Parle, Le Sueur, Lincoln, Lyon, Martin, Murray, Nicollet, Nobles, Pipestone, Redwood, Rock, Sibley, Waseca, Watonwan, and Yellow Medicine.

Court for the Second Division shall be held at Mankato.

(3) The Third Division comprises the counties of Chisago, Dakota, Goodhue, Ramsey, Rice, Scott, and Washington.

Court for the Third Division shall be held at Saint Paul.

(4) The Fourth Division comprises the counties of Anoka, Carver, Chippewa, Hennepin, Isanti, Kandiyohi, McLeod, Meeker, Renville, Sherburne, Swift, and Wright.

Court for the Fourth Division shall be held at Minneapolis.

(5) The Fifth Division comprises the counties of Aitkin, Benton, Carlton, Cass, Cook, Crow Wing, Itasca, Kanabec, Koochiching, Lake, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Pine, and Saint Louis.

Court for the Fifth Division shall be held at Duluth.

(6) The Sixth Division comprises the counties of Becker, Beltrami, Big Stone, Clay, Clearwater, Douglas, Grant, Hubbard, Kittson, Lake of the Woods, Mahnomen, Marshall, Norman, Otter Tail, Pennington, Polk, Pope, Red Lake, Roseau, Stearns, Stevens, Todd, Traverse, Wadena, and Wilkin.

Court for the Sixth Division shall be held at Fergus Falls and Bemidji.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 882; Pub. L. 110–406, § 18, Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4295.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 169 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 89, 36 Stat. 1115; Apr. 10, 1926, ch. 113, 44 Stat. 238).

Provisions relating to the appointment and residence of deputy clerks and the maintenance of offices by them were omitted as covered by section 751 of this title.

The counties of Pennington and Lake of the Woods, in the Sixth Division, were created since the enactment of the Judicial Code.

Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2008—Par. (6). Pub. L. 110–406 inserted “and Bemidji” after “Fergus Falls”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1927–2025 · leading case: United States v. Johnson
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Johnson (1944) scotus · cites it 2× “Compare Judicial Code, § 42, 28 U.S.C. § 103 , with § 3237 of H.R. 5450, 78th Cong.”
United States v. Olen (1960) nysd · cites it 2× “It merely provides for an auxiliary venue under certain circumstances; and district courts are not divested of their general jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 103 [now 18 U.S.C. § 3237 ].”
U. S. Philips Corp. v. National Micronetics Inc. v. North American Philips Corporation and N. v. Philips Gloeilampenfabr (1977) ca2 “” Appellant claims that the capillary process was “obvious” under 28 U.S.C. § 103 and that the district court erred in inferring from the evidence that the Peloschek patent claimed a level of gap precision and uniformity greater than that found in the prior art.”
United States v. Levy (1946) ca3 “The Judicial Code, § 42, 28 U.S.C.A. § 103 , fixes a general rule that “When any offense against the United States is begun in one judicial district and completed in another, it shall he deemed to have been committed in either, and may be dealt with, inquired of, tried,…”
Lauck v. E-470 PUBLIC HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (2008) coloctapp “See 28 U.S.C. § 103 (b)@) (de-seribing the components of the NHS); see also Pub.”
Mahaffey v. Hudspeth (1942) ca10 “” 28 U.S.C.A. § 103 , 36 Stat. 1100 , provides : “When any offense against the United States is begun in one judicial district and completed in another, it shall be deemed to have been committed in either, and may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished in…”
Soundscriber Corp. v. United States (1966) cc “Claims 6, 15,16, and 18 of the '449 patent in suit are invalid under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 103 . 20. Defendant has urged that claim 6 of the '449 patent is invalid under 35 U.”
Citizens for Balanced Environment & Transportation, Inc. v. Volpe (1974) ctd “Plaintiffs cite particularly $465,000 of “Federal-aid primary” money, 28 U.S.C. § 103 (b), used to build a bridge at the northerly end of the spur.”
Newton v. United States (1947) ca4 “at pages 955, 956i And we regard as particularly significant in this connection, the provisions of § 42 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 103 , which provides that an offense begun in-one District and completed in another, may be tried in either District.”
United States v. Bushwick Mills, Inc. (1947) ca2 “Section 42 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 103 , provides that “When any offense against the United States is begun in one judicial district and completed in another, it shall be deemed to have been committed in either, and may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined,…”
United States v. Bink (1947) ord “See 28 U.S.C.A. § 103 . 9 It is universal practice in federal indictments to allege the occurrence in the state and district.”
United States v. Monjar (1942) ded “It merely provides for an auxiliary venue under certain circumstances; and district courts are not divested of their general jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 103 . Kopald-Quinn & Co. et al.”
Show all 39 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.