28 U.S.C. § 125
Utah
Court for the Northern Division shall be held at Salt Lake City and Ogden.
Court for the Central Division shall be held at Salt Lake City, Provo, St. George, Moab, and Monticello..1
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 190 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 109, 36 Stat. 1127).
A provision relating to the maintenance of offices by the clerk was omitted as covered by section 751 of this title.
Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.
2025—Pub. L. 118–250 substituted “St. George, Moab, and Monticello.” for “and St. George”.
1996—Par. (1). Pub. L. 104–317, § 606(a), inserted “Salt Lake City and” before “Ogden”.
Par. (2). Pub. L. 104–317, § 606(b), inserted “, Provo, and St. George” after “Salt Lake City”.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1928–2025 · leading case: Muratore v. Darr, 375 F.3d 140 (1st Cir. 2004).
Muratore v. Darr, 375 F.3d 140 (1st Cir. 2004). “In interpreting section 959(a)’s predecessor, 28 U.S.C. § 125 , 2 Learned Hand, writing for the Second Circuit, concluded that “[mjerely to hold matters in statu quo; to mark time, as it were; to do only what is necessary to hold the assets intact; such activities” did not…”
Vass v. Conron Bros. Co., 59 F.2d 969 (2d Cir. 1932). “Code (Judicial Code § 66, 28 USCA § 125) presupposes its correctness, by making an exception to it.”
MacArthur v. San Juan Cnty., 416 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (D. Utah 2005). “is proper within the Central Division of the District of Utah under 28 U.S.C. § 125 . b. Defendants’ Statement of Venue.”
In re Jefferson Cnty., 484 B.R. 427 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2012). “” 28 U.S.C. § 125 (1887) (emphasis added). As written, it applied to only receivers or managers appointed by a court of the United States.”
In Re N.P. Mining Co., Inc., Debtor. Alabama Surface Mining Comm'n v. N.P. Mining Co., Inc., C. Michael Stilson, Tr., 963 F.2d 1449 (11th Cir. 1992). “” Interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 125 , the predecessor to 28 U.”
Thompson v. Texas Mexican Ry. Co., 328 U.S. 134 (1946). “66 of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. § 125 , authorizes suits against the trustee, without leave of the bankruptcy court, “in respect of any act or transaction of his in carrying on the business.”
Jacobowitz v. Thomson, 141 F.2d 72 (2d Cir. 1944). “Code, § 66, 28 U.S.C.A. § 125 , was “to place receivers upon the same plane with railroad companies, both as respects their liability to be sued for acts done while operating a railroad, and as respects the mode of service.”
In Re Old Carco LLC, 424 B.R. 633 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010). “Mining court quoted Judge Learned Hand’s interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 125 , the predecessor section to 28 U.”
Bela M. Haberern v. The Lehigh & New England Ry. Co., 554 F.2d 581 (3d Cir. 1977). “§ 959 is referred to in the opinion as § 66 of the Judicial Code, and was formerly codified at 28 U.S.C. § 125 . It is based upon the act of Congress of March 3, 1887, ch.”
Stephens v. Walker, 117 So. 22 (Ala. 1928). “Code; 28 USCA § 125, and note 2, p. 212; In re Smith (D.”
Eaton v. Whisenant, 50 S.W.2d 1109 (Tex. App. 1932). “against the *1111 receiver could not be prosecuted in another court without its permission, therefore, the ■question presented for decision is, Was it necessary for plaintiffs to have obtained such leave as a condition precedent? Originally a receiver could neither sue nor be…”
Nat'l Ben. Life Ins. Co. v. Shaw-Walker Co., 111 F.2d 497 (D.C. Cir. 1940). “(1934) § 125, 28 U.S.C.A. § 125 , removing this requirement as to suits arising out of the receiver’s own acts.”
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.