28 U.S.C. § 116

Oklahoma

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

Oklahoma is divided into three judicial districts to be known as the Northern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Oklahoma.

Northern District

(a) The Northern District comprises the counties of Craig, Creek, Delaware, Mayes, Nowata, Osage, Ottawa, Pawnee, Rogers, Tulsa, and Washington.

Court for the Northern District shall be held at Bartlesville, Miami, Pawhuska, Tulsa, and Vinita.

Eastern District

(b) The Eastern District comprises the counties of Adair, Atoka, Bryan, Carter, Cherokee, Choctaw, Coal, Haskell, Hughes, Johnston, Latimer, Le Flore Love, McCurtain, McIntosh, Marshall, Murray, Muskogee, Okfuskee, Okmulgee, Pittsburg, Pontotoc, Pushmataha, Seminole, Sequoyah, and Wagoner.

Court for the Eastern District shall be held at Ada, Ardmore, Durant, Hugo, Muskogee, Okmulgee, Poteau, and S. McAlester.

Western District

(c) The Western District comprises the counties of Alfalfa, Beaver, Beckham, Blaine, Caddo, Canadian, Cimarron, Cleveland, Comanche, Cotton, Custer, Dewey, Ellis, Garfield, Garvin, Grady, Grant, Greer, Harmon, Harper, Jackson, Jefferson, Kay, Kingfisher, Kiowa, Lincoln, Logan, McClain, Major, Noble, Oklahoma, Payne, Pottawatomie, Roger Mills, Stephens, Texas, Tillman, Washita, Woods, and Woodward.

Court for the Western District shall be held at Chickasha, Enid, Guthrie, Lawton, Mangum, Oklahoma City, Pauls Valley, Ponca City, Shawnee, and Woodward.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 57 cases (45 in the last 5 years), 1927–2026 · leading case: Richard Doyle Rush v. United States

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Richard Doyle Rush v. United States (1958) ca10 · cites it 3× “The judgment is reversed with directions that appropriate proceedings be taken in the Eastern District of Oklahoma for the disposition of the seized automobile.”

Seaboard Nat. Bank v. Rogers Milk Products Co. (1927) ca2 “The land was located in the Northern district of New York.”

Earl Robert Hall v. United States (1969) ca10 “§ 7 ; 28 U.S.C. § 116 ; and Johnson v. Yellow Cab Transit Co.”

Commonwealth Trust Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp. (1939) pawd · cites it 2× “" Of the exceptions noted in this statute, the only one pertinent to the present case is 28 U.S.C.A. § 116 , which confers venue of a local action upon the court within whose district property is located which is sought to be recovered.”

Bovay v. H. M. Byllesby & Co. (1937) ca5 “With the exceptions provided by sections 55 and 56 of the Judicjai Code ( 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 116 , 117), the process of the bankruptcy court in ordinary adjudications is ineffective if served on defendants outside of the district, Lathrop v.”

Wytch v. Farris (2024) oknd · cites it 3× “" 28 U.S.C. § 116 . Here, Petitioner challenges his state court conviction obtained in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No.”

Wytch v. Farris (2024) okwd · cites it 3× “" 28 U.S.C. § 116 . Here, Petitioner challenges his state court conviction obtained in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No.”

Skagit County v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (1932) ca9 “ion is joint and the suit is not of a local nature, and if it be considered that the action is of a local nature because of the faet *643 that the appellees seek to remove the eloud upon real estate lying partly in one district and partly within another in the same state, then…”

Headrick v. David L. Moss Criminal Justice Center (2024) oked · cites it 2× “28 U.S.C. § 116 (a). Because this Court is located in Muskogee County, Oklahoma, within the Eastern District of Oklahoma, proper venue does not lie in this district.”

Wytch v. Farris (2024) oknd · cites it 2× “1 See 28 U.S.C. § 116 (a). Petitioner is presently confined at the Lawton Correctional Facility, which is located in Comanche County in 1 Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and feloniously pointing a firearm, following a jury trial in Tulsa County in 2018.”

Barnett v. Rankins (2024) oked · cites it 2× “See 28 U.S.C. § 116 (b). Thus, jurisdiction is proper in that court, and not here.”

Barnett v. Bridges (2024) okwd · cites it 2× “See 28 U.S.C. § 116 (b). Thus, jurisdiction is proper in that court, and not here.”

Show all 57 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.