28 U.S.C. § 117
Oregon
Oregon constitutes one judicial district.
Court shall be held at Coquille, Eugene or Springfield, Klamath Falls, Medford, Pendleton, and Portland.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1932–2025 · leading case: Securities & Exchange Commission v. Bilzerian
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Bilzerian (2004)
“Further support for the proposition that § 754 is a “stepping stone” is the fact that, prior to 1948, the provisions of both sections were contained in a single predecessor statute, 28 U.S.C. § 117 (1940). See Reviser's Notes, H.”
Carter v. Powell (1939)
“They contend that the provisions of section 56 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 117 , do not destroy the venue privileges of defendants in actions brought by receivers; that the purpose of said section was only to enable receivers to control certain properties outside of the…”
Link v. Powell (1932)
“provisions of section 56 of the Judicial Code (28 USCA § 117) L. R. Powell, Jr., and E. W.”
United States v. Crookshanks (1977)
“Act of Feb. 14, 1859, ch. 33, § 1, 11 Stat. 383 .”
W. J. Jones & Son, Inc. v. Stocker (1967)
“28 U.S.C. § 117 . The territorial jurisdiction of the District of Oregon and of the State of Oregon are identical.”
Sherburne v. Miami Coal Company (1941)
“Discussing the effect of § 56 of the Judicial Code, the Circuit Court of Appeals said: “The property leased by G.”
Acken v. New York Title & Mortgage Co. (1934)
“They merely sued in the federal District Court in Nebraska as Minnesota receivers relying upon section 56 of the Judicial Code (28 USCA § 117) which permitted such a suit where there is property of a fixed character and subject to the suit lying in different states of the same…”
Lee v. Freeman (1935)
“, and a copy of the bill of complaint in that suit and of the order therein appointing receivers were filed in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida, pursuant to a provision of section 56 of the Judicial Code, 28 USCA § 117. By the terms of the lease the…”
Mitchell v. Whitman (1938)
“56 of the Judicial ■ Code [ 28 U.S.C.A. § 117 ] extending the jurisdiction of a District Court in receivership throughout the Circuit in which .”
Campbell v. Almost Home Restaurant (2021)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 117 . Accordingly, venue appears to lie in the District of Oregon.”
Jackson v. Multnomah County (2024)
“28 U.S.C § 117. Plaintiff has not 9 named any defendants who are located in the Western District of Washington.”
Russ v. Nike, Inc. (2025)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 117 . Thus, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1).”
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.