28 U.S.C. § 114
North Dakota
North Dakota constitutes one judicial district.
Court shall be held at Bismarck, Fargo, Grand Forks, and Minot.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases, 1927–2017 · leading case: Sullivan v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
Sullivan v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (2008)
“The court has conducted a thorough examination of the published legislative history regarding the 1948 changes to Title 28, including review of all legislative materials available in the Third Circuit libraries in Newark and Philadelphia and the DC Circuit library in Washington.”
Phillips Construction, LLC v. Daniels Law Firm, PLLC (2015)
“2d at 644 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 114 (1940) and 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (b) (1948)).”
United States v. Francisco Colorado Cessa (2017)
“It cites Congress’s definition of “prosecutions” in an earlier venue statute ( 28 U.S.C. § 114 ) that required “prosecutions” to take place not just in the district but the division where the crime occurred: “the word ‘prosecutions,’ as used in this statute, does not include the…”
Larry W. Robbins v. Robert W. Whelan (1981)
“*53 28 U.S.C. §§ 114 , 455. Because the law of this circuit does not require a different trial judge upon a new trial remanded in a jury case, O’Shea v.”
Southern Pac. Co. v. Klinge (1933)
“The jurisdiction of the district court of Utah is not challenged, and cannot be, for the statute itself, in Section 6, offers plaintiff a choice of the districts of (a) defendant’s residence — in this case Kentucky, (b) where the cause of action arose — in this ease Oregon, or…”
United States v. Beadon (1931)
“The only statutory provision regulating-change of venue in criminal eases is section 53 of the Judicial Code (28 USCA § 114), and it affects only “districts containing more than one division,” and provides that “all prosecutions for crimes or offenses shall he had within the…”
United States v. Orshek (1947)
“This section does not contain any specific venue provisions, such as sections 7 and 8 of the Act of 1907, but the Judicial Code sections omit all venue provisions relating to particular states having districts containing more than one division, and in lieu of these provisions…”
Standish v. Gold Creek Mining Co. (1937)
“” The District Court rule purporting to create the division is: “Rule 9-2. The district of Montana is hereby divided into the Butte, Helena, Great Falls, Missoula and Billings Divisions.”
Borgia v. United States (1935)
“Appellant’s point is that inasmuch as there was a grand jury impaneled and subject to call in the Northern Division and that the alleged crimes were committed there, the grand jury in the Central Division was without power to return the indictments herein.”
Mizell v. Vickrey (1929)
“In support of this he appears to rely on section 53 of the Judicial Code (28 USCA § 114), which, in so far as material here, is this: “All prosecutions for crimes or offenses shall be had within the division of such districts where the same were committed, unless the court, or…”
United States v. Bink (1947)
“re a court is absolutely without and cannot legally take jurisdiction of the subject matter of an offense committed in another county or district, the accused ordinarily bases his attack directly upon want of jurisdiction of the subject matter and has no occasion to resort to or…”
United States v. Bailey (2002)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 114 . Long arranged for a canine unit from a local police department to check the package.”
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.