28 U.S.C. § 111
New Mexico
New Mexico constitutes one judicial district.
Court shall be held at Albuquerque, Las Cruces, Las Vegas, Roswell, Santa Fe, and Silver City.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1926–2025 · leading case: Calcote v. Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co.
Calcote v. Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co. (1946)
“" Since neither of the judges who concurred in the decision in this case is of the opinion that the petition for rehearing should be granted, the petition is denied.”
United States v. Waldman (2016)
“And while Congress clearly intended to protect correctional officers from harm in passing 28 U.S.C. § 111 , that purpose must be harmonized with Eighth Amendment protections, not supersede them.”
Greenleaf v. Safeway Trails, Inc. (1944)
“§ 723 appendix, which is the basis of the present Rule 19(b).”
State of Washington v. United States (1936)
“" In 28 U.S.C.A. § 111 (originally enacted February 28, 1839) it is provided that "nonjoinder of parties who are not inhabitants of nor found within the district, as aforesaid, shall not constitute matter of abatement or objection to the suit.”
Standard Stoker Co. v. Lower (1931)
“both aétions at law and suits in equity, but applying only to parties that cannot be joined because they are out of the court’s jurisdiction, is contained in section 50 of the Judicial Code (28 USCA § 111), which reads as follows: “When there are several defendants in any suit…”
United States v. Reies Lopez Tijerina, Cristobal Lopez Tijerina, Jerry Noll, Ezekial Dominguez and Alfonso Chavez (1969)
“28 U.S.C. § 111 . 15 . In so doing the court said: “It is the judgment of the Court that it would be in the interest of a fair trial for the case to be tried at Las Cruces.”
Oxley v. Sweetland (1938)
“Code, § 50, 28 U.S.C.A. § 111 , provides: “When there are several defendants in any suit at law or in equity, and one or more of them are neither inhabitants of nor found within the district in which the suit is brought, and do not voluntarily appear, the court may entertain…”
Utilities Production Corporation v. Carter Oil Co. (1934)
“Code, 28 USCA § 111. All those claiming an interest in real estate are proper parties to a suit to quiet title thereto; they are not indispensable parties, for a title may be quieted against one claimant without affecting the rights of another who is not made a party.”
Atlantic Coast Line R. v. Baltimore & O. R. (1935)
“It is suggested that this is such a well known fact in Maryland that the court can take judicial notice of it but if necessary the plaintiff offers to amend its bill and so expressly allege. The point may, therefore, be dealt with on the assumption of the truth of this fact.”
Hazeltine Corporation v. White (1934)
“Code (28 USCA § 111), nor rule 47 of the Equity Rules (28 US CA § 723), enables the court to hear and determine tho cause in the absence of an indispensable party.”
Tower Hill Connellsville Coke Co. of West Virginia v. Piedmont Coal Co. (1929)
“’ “See, also, Judicial Code, § 50 [28 USCA § 111]- ' “Are Edward D. Adams and Geo.”
Arizona Lead Mines, Inc. v. Sullivan Mining Co. (1943)
“Code § 50, 28 U.S.C.A. § 111 ; Equity Rule 39, 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.