28 U.S.C. § 128
Washington
Washington is divided into two judicial districts to be known as the Eastern and Western Districts of Washington.
Eastern District
(a) The Eastern District comprises the counties of Adams, Asotin, Benton, Chelan, Columbia, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Stevens, Walla Walla, Whitman, and Yakima.
Court for the Eastern District shall be held at Spokane, Yakima, Walla Walla, and Richland.
Western District
(b) The Western District comprises the counties of Clallam, Clark, Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Lewis, Mason, Pacific, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Skamania, Snohomish, Thurston, Wahkiakum, and Whatcom.
Court for the Western District shall be held at Bellingham, Seattle, Tacoma, Mount Vernon, and Vancouver.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33
cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: Ross Furlow v. United States
Ross Furlow v. United States (1981)
“Yakima is specifically designated by 28 U.S.C. § 128 . 4 . Louisiana v. Resweber, 329 U.”
Forever Green Athletic Fields, Inc. v. Dawson (2014)
“We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 128 (a)(1), which provides that the district courts shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final judgments, orders and decrees of the Bankruptcy Courts.”
Ali v. Ashcroft (2003)
“§ 2241 (a), providing that the district courts may grant writs of habeas corpus “within their respective jurisdictions,” and 28 U.S.C. § 128 (b), which specifies the counties comprising the Western District of Washington, where this case was filed.”
Sierra Club v. United States Department of Transportation (2004)
“” 28 U.S.C. § 128 (a). FHWA’s mission is not simply to approve state transportation agencies’ procedures that are legally sufficient.”
Citizens for Mass Transit Against Freeways v. Brinegar (1973)
“These facts combined with the uncontested affidavit showing that the administrator of the hearing had no knowledge of the new PPM when the hearing was conducted and the lack of any showing by defendants of how the effective version of the PPM was substantially violated, and the…”
Lathan v. Brinegar (1974)
“2d 696 , which we also decide today, in banc, primarily to consider whether a new public hearing, under 28 U.S.C. § 128 (a), must be held before further actions are taken to carry out the construction of two portions of interstate freeways.”
Worthen Bank & Trust Co., N.A. v. Hilyard Drilling Co. (In Re Hilyard Drilling Co.) (1986)
“1 Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 128 . Beginning January 30, 1985 through August 30, 1985, and after the filing of its petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, Hilyard negotiated and consumated the sales of used vehicles and equipment, much of which…”
Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Inc. v. Bartlett (1971)
“’s 20-5 and 20-8 are correct interpretations of 28 U.S.C. § 128 and 49 U.S.C. § 1651 (b) (2) with respect to the Secretary’s duties in passing upon applications in the secondary road program.”
Colvin v. Amegy Mortgage Co. (2015)
“Colvin, debtor in possession, the Plaintiff, appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 128 (a) or (b) from the judgment, order or decree of the bankruptcy judge that dismisses most claims in his adversary proceeding dated January 7, 2015 (Dkt.”
Arlington Coalition on Transportation v. Volpe (1971)
“On February 26, 1960 Federal officials informed the Virginia Department of Highways that the public hearing held on October 29, 1958 fulfilled the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 128 and that no additional hearing was required.”
Autobidmaster LLC v. Temnikov (2021)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 128 (b) (“Court for the Western District of Washington shall 14 be held at Bellingham, Seattle, Tacoma, and Vancouver.”
Nicholas Leon Rusk v. Tazewell County Sheriff, et al. (2025)
“; 28 U.S.C. § 128 (a). 21 The Court should hold that venue is not proper in the Western District of 22 Washington and that the case should be transferred to the Central District of Illinois in 23 24 1 the interest of justice.”
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.