U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART I— ORGANIZATION OF COURTS › Chapter CHAPTER 5— DISTRICT COURTS

28 U.S.C. § 121

South Carolina

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
South Carolina constitutes one judicial district comprising eleven divisions.(1) The Charleston Division comprises the counties of Berkeley, Charleston, Clarendon, Colleton, Dorchester, and Georgetown.

Court for the Charleston Division shall be held at Charleston.

(2) The Columbia Division comprises the counties of Kershaw, Lee, Lexington, Richland, and Sumter.

Court for the Columbia Division shall be held at Columbia.

(3) The Florence Division comprises the counties of Chesterfield, Darlington, Dillon, Florence, Horry, Marion, Marlboro, and Williamsburg.

Court for the Florence Division shall be held at Florence.

(4) The Aiken Division comprises the counties of Aiken, Allendale, and Barnwell.

Court for the Aiken Division shall be held at Aiken.

(5) The Orangeburg Division comprises the counties of Bamberg, Calhoun, and Orangeburg.

Court for the Orangeburg Division shall be held at Orangeburg.

(6) The Greenville Division comprises the counties of Greenville and Laurens.

Court for the Greenville Division shall be held at Greenville.

(7) The Rock Hill Division comprises the counties of Chester, Fairfield, Lancaster, and York.

Court for the Rock Hill Division shall be held at Rock Hill.

(8) The Greenwood Division comprises the counties of Abbeville, Edgefield, Greenwood, McCormick, Newberry, and Saluda.

Court for the Greenwood Division shall be held at Greenwood.

(9) The Anderson Division comprises the counties of Anderson, Oconee, and Pickens.

Court for the Anderson Division shall be held at Anderson.

(10) The Spartanburg Division comprises the counties of Cherokee, Spartanburg, and Union.

Court for the Spartanburg Division shall be held at Spartanburg.

(11) The Beaufort Division comprises the counties of Beaufort, Hampton, and Jasper.

Court for the Beaufort Division shall be held at Beaufort.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 889; Pub. L. 89–242, § 1(a), Oct. 7, 1965, 79 Stat. 951; Pub. L. 99–657, § 2, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3670; Pub. L. 102–140, title III, § 304, Oct. 28, 1991, 105 Stat. 810.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 186 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 105, 36 Stat. 1123; Feb. 5, 1912, ch. 28, 37 Stat. 60; Mar. 3, 1915, ch. 100, § 5, 38 Stat. 961; Sept. 1, 1916, ch. 434, 39 Stat. 721; Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 261, 42 Stat. 1486; Jan. 30, 1925, ch. 118, 43 Stat. 800; June 26, 1926, ch. 696, §§ 1–3, 44 Stat. 773; June 20, 1936, ch. 637, §§ 1–3, 49 Stat. 1558, 1559; June 12, 1940, ch. 335, 54 Stat. 344; June 28, 1943, ch. 173, title II, § 204, 57 Stat. 244; Dec. 13, 1944, ch. 556, 58 Stat. 801).

The last sentence of section 186 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to trial of criminal cases in the division in which the offense was committed, was omitted as fully covered by Rules 18–22 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

A provision relating to the places of the clerks’ offices was omitted as covered by section 751 of this title.

The provision respecting court accommodations at Orangeburg was omitted as covered by section 142 of this title.

Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1991—Par. (4). Pub. L. 102–140, § 304(1), struck out reference to Hampton County.

Par. (11). Pub. L. 102–140, § 304(2), inserted reference to Hampton County.

1986—Pub. L. 99–657, § 2(1), substituted “eleven divisions” for “ten divisions” in introductory text.

Par. (1). Pub. L. 99–657, § 2(2), struck out “Beaufort,” after “counties of” and substituted “and Georgetown” for “Georgetown, and Jasper”.

Par. (11). Pub. L. 99–657, § 2(3), added par. (11).

1965—Pub. L. 89–242 consolidated into a single district the 10 divisions of the state which had formerly been divided into an Eastern and a Western District.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1986 Amendment

Pub. L. 99–657, § 4, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3670, provided that:“(a)Effective Date.—(1) The amendments made by sections 2 and 3 [amending this section and section 90 of this title] take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 14, 1986].“(2) The amendment made by section 4 [enacting this note] takes effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.“(b)Pending Actions.—The amendments made by this Act [amending this section and section 90 of this title] shall not affect any action commenced before the effective date of such amendments and pending on such date.“(c)Juries.—The amendments made by this Act [amending this section and section 90 of this title] shall not affect the composition, or preclude the service, of any grand or petit jury summoned, empaneled, or actually serving on the effective date of such amendments.”

Effective Date of 1965 Amendment

Pub. L. 89–242, § 6, Oct. 7, 1965, 79 Stat. 953, provided that: “The provisions of this Act [amending this section and section 133 of this title and enacting provisions set out as a note below] shall become effective on the first day of the month following the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 7, 1965].”

Consolidation of South Carolina Into a Single Judicial District

Pub. L. 89–242, §§ 2–5, Oct. 7, 1965, 79 Stat. 952, 953, provided for the consolidation, in compliance with section 132 of this title, of the Eastern and Western Districts of South Carolina into a single district with continuing jurisdiction over civil cases and criminal acts pending or committed prior to Nov. 1, 1965, and appropriate provisions for the appointment or transfer of United States attorneys, marshals, and other court personnel, then serving, from the two districts to the consolidated district.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1928–2026 · leading case: United States v. Gruberg, 493 F. Supp. 234 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Gruberg, 493 F. Supp. 234 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). “1103 , formerly codified at 28 U.S.C. § 121 , (1940 ed.). Section 59 covered venue in both civil and criminal actions affected by the creation of a new judicial district or the transfer of territory from one district to another, and referred to § 58 of the Judiciary Act,…”
Mizell v. Vickrey, 36 F.2d 327 (10th Cir. 1929). · cites it 4× “” This and section 59 of the Judicial Code (28 USCA § 121) and the construction given to them are determinative of the inquiry whether the contention is sound.”
Hale v. United States, 25 F.2d 430 (8th Cir. 1928). ““Defendants further respectfully show to the court that, under section 59 of the Judicial Code (28 USCA § 121), the court, upon application of the defendant, is authorized and empowered to transfer the trial' of said cause to Osage county, notwithstanding the fact that the…”
Eaddy v. Little, 234 F. Supp. 377 (E.D.S.C. 1964). “Title 28 U.S.C. § 121 . 8 . See Grady v. Irvine, 4 Cir.”
State of Missouri v. Stupp Bros. Bridge & Iron Co., 248 F. Supp. 169 (W.D. Mo. 1965). “28 U.S.C. § 121 (a). 4 When the project has been completed, inspected and accepted by the Administrator a final detailed accounting of cost is made by the state and reviewed by auditors for the Bureau of Public Roads.”
Mizell v. Beard, 25 F.2d 324 (N.D. Okla. 1928). “(2d) 95 , wherein it was held: “The provision of Judicial Code, § 59 (28 USCA § 121), similar to section 300 (28 USCA § 443; Comp.”
Oltman v. Currie, 231 F. Supp. 654 (E.D.S.C. 1964). “28 U.S.C. § 121 (a) (1) includes Dorches-ter County in the Charleston Division.”
Campbell v. Bennett (S.D. Ga. 2021). “28 U.S.C. § 121 (defining the District of South Carolina).”
Mikell v. The State of South Carolina (S.D. Ga. 2022). “28 U.S.C. § 121 (7). Thus, venue is proper in that District.”
Wright v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. (S.D.N.Y. 2023). “See 28 U.S.C. §§ 121 (11) (the State of South Carolina constitutes one federal judicial district, and its Beaufort Division includes Beauford County, South Carolina), 1391(b)(2).”
Romo v. Warden FCI Williamsburg (E.D. Tex. 2020). “Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 121 , Salters, South Carolina is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Florence Division.”
Duncan v. Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau (S.D.N.Y. 2024). “28 U.S.C. § 121 . Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a), even if a case is filed in a jurisdiction where venue is proper, a court may transfer the case to any other district where it might have been brought “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.”
Show all 14 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.