28 U.S.C. § 129

West Virginia

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

West Virginia is divided into two judicial districts to be known as the Northern and Southern Districts of West Virginia.

Northern District

(a) The Northern District comprises the counties of Barbour, Berkeley, Braxton, Brooke, Calhoun, Doddridge, Gilmer, Grant, Hampshire, Hancock, Hardy, Harrison, Jefferson, Lewis, Marion, Marshall, Mineral, Monongalia, Morgan, Ohio, Pendleton, Pleasants, Pocahontas, Preston, Randolph, Ritchie, Taylor, Tucker, Tyler, Upshur, Webster, and Wetzel.

Court for the Northern District shall be held at Clarksburg, Elkins, Fairmont, Martinsburg, and Wheeling.

Southern District

(b) The Southern District comprises the counties of Boone, Cabell, Clay, Fayette, Greenbrier, Jackson, Kanawha, Lincoln, Logan, McDowell, Mason, Mercer, Mingo, Monroe, Nicholas, Putnam, Raleigh, Roane, Summers, Wayne, Wirt, Wood, and Wyoming.

Court for the Southern District shall be held at Beckley, Bluefield, Charleston, Huntington, Lewisburg, and Parkersburg.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 42 cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: United States v. Sean Michael Grier

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Sean Michael Grier (2006) ca3 “Grier argues that the District Court erred in applying a preponderance standard to facts relevant to the four-level enhancement, in finding that he had committed aggravated assault under Pennsylvania law, and in imposing sentence without fully articulating its consideration of…”

United States v. Gordon (1999) ca10 “Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 129 '.. We affirm. I. Background On January 11,1997, at approximately 9:00 p.”

United States v. Gary Steven Florence (1972) ca4 · cites it 2× “28 U.S.C.A. § 129 . This meant that the jury panel, from which the grand jury which indicted him and the petit jury which convicted him were drawn, was chosen from the eleven counties comprising the Elkins “division,” as set forth in the Jury Selection Plan for the Northern…”

Mary Lois Tillman v. Edward Coley, Jr., Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Bleckley County, Ga. (1989) ca11 ““A district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 129 , notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.”

Woodruff v. Hamilton Township Public Schools (2009) ca3 “The District Court laid out for the Woodruffs the various options for continuing with the instant civil action, including obtaining an attorney or continuing with their claims only. The Woodruffs elected to file an amended complaint which purported to raise them claims only.”

Roy Day v. Daniel Toner (2013) ca3 “We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 129 . We review a district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint as frivolous or malicious for abuse of discretion.”

Nancy Johnson v. United States Railroad Retirement Board (1992) cadc “She chose instead to move for reconsideration, requesting that the district court dismiss her complaint, or that it certify its order finding no jurisdiction for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 129 (b). While her complaint was pending in the district court, Mrs.”

David Brown v. City of Ecorse (2009) ca6 “As to the second, Brown contends that there was no rational basis related to legitimate state concerns for denying his application.”

United States v. Roy Harman (1965) ca4 “, so far as pertinent, provides: ““ * * the prosecution shall be had in a district in which the offense was committed, but if the district consists of two or more divisions the trial shall be had in a division in which the offense was committed.”

United States v. Christopher Steele (2016) ca3 “Finally, he found that any harm from the prosecution’s brief reference to Steele’s ex-partner was cured by the court’s jury instructions before and after closing arguments.”

Penoro v. Rederi A/B Disa (1967) ca2 “440 (1935), the Supreme Court first considered the problem of stays of court proceedings under Title 28 U.S.C. § 129 , predecessor to § 1292(a) (1).”

Yigal Bosch v. Frost National Bank (2012) ca5 “2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 129 ). We review actions of the district court in its appellate role for an abuse of discretion, Zer-Ilan v.”

Show all 42 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.