28 U.S.C. § 109
New Hampshire
New Hampshire constitutes one judicial district.
Court shall be held at Concord and Littleton.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 118
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1928–2026 · leading case: Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (1967)
“2d 408 , the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dealt with the issue of what district an unincorporated association may be said to inhabit under the special venue statute governing patent suits, then 28 U. S. C. § 109 (1940 ed.), now 28 U. S.”
Ex Parte Collett (1949)
“For example, §§ 1394, 1395, 1396 and 1400, respectively, prescribe a new definition of appropriate forums for actions against the Comptroller of the Currency, involving fines and forfeitures, internal revenue taxes and patent and copyright suits; and the following statutes are…”
Joseph P. Ruth, Sometimes Also Known as J. P. Ruth v. The Eagle-Picher Company, a Corporation (1955)
“28 U.S.C.A. § 109 , prior to the 1948 revision of the Judicial Code, Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat.”
Ruddies v. Auburn Spark Plug Co. (1966)
“This section provided: “In suits brought for the infringement of letters patent the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction, in law or in equity, in the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant, or in any district in which the defendant, whether a…”
Hazeltine Corporation v. General Electric Co. (1937)
“One of them, the General Electric Company, appeared specially and moved to dismiss the bill of complaint in each case on the ground that it had committed no acts of infringement within the District of Maryland, and that therefore this court has no jurisdiction to entertain a…”
Crosley Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. (1942)
“Furthermore, the petitioner's argument fails because the premise upon which it is based, namely, that a declaratory judgment suit may be brought against a patent owner wherever he may be found, is wholly incorrect.”
Sperry Products, Inc. v. Association of American Railroads (1942)
“Code, 28 U.S. C.A. § 109, in its application to an unincorporated association it seems inevitable that we should attribute an "inhabitancy" to it as though it were a single jural person and not an aggregate.”
Michigan Tool Co. v. Drummond (1938)
“They argue that suits for infringement must be brought in the district in which the defendant is an inhabitant, or in the district in which the defendant shall have committed acts of infringement and have a regular and established place of business according to 28 U.S.C. § 109 ,…”
Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co. (1942)
“The only question presented for our determination is whether § 48 of the Judicial Code ( 28 U. S. C. § 109 ) is the sole provision governing the venue of patent infringement litigation, or whether that section is supplemented *562 by § 52 of the Judicial Code ( 28 U.”
In Re Amtorg Trading Corporation (1935)
“By the provisions of the Judicial Code § 48, 28 USCA § 109, suits brought for the infringement of patents are required to be brought in either the judicial district of which the defendant is an inhabitant, or in any district in which the defendant had committed an act of…”
Rutland Railway Corporation v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (1962)
“1084 (1909), 28 U.S.C. § 109 (1940) (now 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (b) (1958)), stated that any suit for patent infringement might be brought “in the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant, or in any district in which the defendant * * * shall have committed acts of…”
The Dow Chemical Company v. Metlon Corporation, and Hayden C. Cobb, Jr. (1960)
“2d 433, 438 , Judge Parker, in speaking of 28 U.S.C.A. § 109 , the section upon which present 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.