Pennsylvania is divided into three judicial districts to be known as the Eastern, Middle, and Western Districts of Pennsylvania.
Eastern District
(a) The Eastern District comprises the counties of Berks, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Lancaster, Lehigh, Montgomery, Northampton, and Philadelphia.
Court for the Eastern District shall be held at Allentown, Easton, Lancaster, Reading, and Philadelphia.
Middle District
(b) The Middle District comprises the counties of Adams, Bradford, Cameron, Carbon, Centre, Clinton, Columbia, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Fulton, Huntingdon, Juniata, Lackawanna, Lebanon, Luzerne, Lycoming, Mifflin, Monroe, Montour, Northumberland, Perry, Pike, Potter, Schuylkill, Snyder, Sullivan, Susquehanna, Tioga, Union, Wayne, Wyoming, and York.
Court for the Middle District shall be held at Harrisburg, Lewisburg, Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, and Williamsport.
Western District
(c) The Western District comprises the counties of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Bedford, Blair, Butler, Cambria, Clarion, Clearfield, Crawford, Elk, Erie, Fayette, Forest, Greene, Indiana, Jefferson, Lawrence, McKean, Mercer, Somerset, Venango, Warren, Washington, and Westmoreland.
Court for the Western District shall be held at Erie, Johnstown, and Pittsburgh.
Notes of Decisions
McQuillen v. Nat'l Cash Register Co., 112 F.2d 877 (4th Cir. 1940).
· cites it 4× “§ 118 (concerning venue in special in rem proceedings), and Judge Coleman was called on to discuss at some length this section and the application of its provisions to the facts of the instant case. The amended bill of the plaintiffs was filed on January 29, 1935.”
Wall Street Aubrey Golf, LLC v. Aubrey, 189 F. App'x 82 (3rd Cir. 2006).
· cites it 2× “See 28 U.S.C. § 118 (c). Rather, the Court sits in Erie (Erie County), Johnstown (Cambria County), and Pittsburgh (Allegheny County).”
Motlow v. S. Holding & Sec. Corp., 95 F.2d 721 (8th Cir. 1938).
· cites it 4× “The superintendent was served with process in the state of New York, in accordance with section 57 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 118 , 28 U.S.C. A. § 118. He appeared specially and moved to set aside the service made upon him and for dismissal of the suit for want of…”
McQuillen v. Nat'l Cash Register Co., 13 F. Supp. 53 (D. Maryland 1935).
· cites it 7× “All the defendants being outside of the Maryland district, and none of them having voluntarily appeared, plaintiffs-moved that they, the plaintiffs, are entitled to have all the defendants made subject to the jurisdiction of this court by substituted service pursuant to the…”
Steelman v. All Continent Corp., 301 U.S. 278 (1937).
· cites it 2× “The suit was brought under § 57 of the Judicial Code ( 28 U. S. C. § 118 ) to remove a cloud upon the title to personal property claimed by the complainant.”
York v. Guar. Trust Co. of New York, 143 F.2d 503 (2d Cir. 1944).
· cites it 2× “[10] The lending banks, holding the greater part of the debtor's stock to secure a loan on which the interest was unpaid, presumably could have voted that stock and thus, controlling the debtor, could have compelled such payment.”
Benitez v. Anciani, 127 F.2d 121 (1st Cir. 1942).
· cites it 4× “28 U.S.C.A. § 118 . Since personal service could not be made on Irahola because he was not in the district, and since it does not appear that personal service upon him outside of the district was ever made or was practicable, it follows that notice should have been given "by…”
Fahey v. Mallonee, 332 U.S. 245 (1947).
“It was believed that this was authorized by Judicial Code, § 57, 28 U. S. C. § 118 . Ammann moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action.”
Dan Cohen Realty Co. v. Nat'l Sav. & Trust Co., 36 F. Supp. 536 (E.D. Ky. 1941).
· cites it 5× “” To sustain venue of the action in this Court, plaintiff relies upon section 57 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 118 , which authorizes maintenance of a suit “to enforce any legal or equitable lien upon or claim to * * * real or personal property” in the Court of the…”
Clarke v. Boysen, 39 F.2d 800 (10th Cir. 1930).
· cites it 3× “(28 USCA § 118). (b) The bill in No. 1513 was an original bill and the defendant, Wertz, and the plaintiff, the Burlington Company, were citizens of the same state.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 118(b) — 7 cases
— 28 U.S.C. § 118(c) — 2 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.