U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART IV— JURISDICTION AND VENUE › Chapter CHAPTER 85— DISTRICT COURTS; JURISDICTION

28 U.S.C. § 1336

Surface Transportation Board’s orders

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the district courts shall have jurisdiction of any civil action to enforce, in whole or in part, any order of the Surface Transportation Board, and to enjoin or suspend, in whole or in part, any order of the Surface Transportation Board for the payment of money or the collection of fines, penalties, and forfeitures.(b) When a district court or the United States Court of Federal Claims refers a question or issue to the Surface Transportation Board for determination, the court which referred the question or issue shall have exclusive jurisdiction of a civil action to enforce, enjoin, set aside, annul, or suspend, in whole or in part, any order of the Surface Transportation Board arising out of such referral.(c) Any action brought under subsection (b) of this section shall be filed within 90 days from the date that the order of the Surface Transportation Board becomes final.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 931; Pub. L. 88–513, § 1, Aug. 30, 1964, 78 Stat. 695; Pub. L. 93–584, § 1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1917; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 128, Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 39; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, § 902(b)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516; Pub. L. 104–88, title III, § 305(a)(1), (2), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 944.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 41(27), (28) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§ 24(27), (28), 207, 36 Stat. 1091, 1148; Oct. 22, 1913, ch. 32, 38 Stat. 219).

Words “Except as otherwise provided by enactment of Congress” were inserted because of certain similar cases of which the courts of appeals are given jurisdiction. (See, for example, section 21 of title 15, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Commerce and Trade.)

Words “any civil action” were substituted for “all cases” and “cases” in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1995—Pub. L. 104–88 substituted “Surface Transportation Board’s” for “Interstate Commerce Commission’s” in section catchline and “Surface Transportation Board” for “Interstate Commerce Commission” wherever appearing in text.

1992—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–572 substituted “United States Court of Federal Claims” for “United States Claims Court”.

1982—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 97–164 substituted “United States Claims Court” for “Court of Claims”.

1975—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 93–584 substituted provisions that the district courts shall have jurisdiction of civil actions to enforce, in whole or in part, orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and to enjoin or suspend, in whole or in part, any order of the Interstate Commerce Commission for the payment of money or the collection of fines, penalties, and forfeitures, for provisions that the district courts shall have jurisdiction of civil actions to enforce, enjoin, set aside, annul or suspend, in whole or in part, any order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

1964—Pub. L. 88–513 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1995 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–88 effective Jan. 1, 1996, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1301 of Title 49, Transportation.

Effective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

Effective Date of 1975 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 93–584 not applicable to actions commenced on or before last day of first month beginning after Jan. 2, 1975, and actions to enjoin or suspend orders of Interstate Commerce Commission which are pending when this amendment becomes effective shall not be affected thereby, but shall proceed to final disposition under the law existing on the date they were commenced, see section 10 of Pub. L. 93–584, set out as a note under section 2321 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 639 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1947–2025 · leading case: Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. Great Lakes Carbon Corp., 624 F.2d 822 (8th Cir. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. Great Lakes Carbon Corp., 624 F.2d 822 (8th Cir. 1980). · cites it 10× “§ 1337 (a); it also had jurisdiction to review the ICC order entered upon referral under 28 U.S.C. § 1336 (b). 7 It had jurisdiction over the general subject matter and accordingly could decide whether the United States should be joined and whether its nonjoinder was a…”
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Wichita Bd. of Trade, 412 U.S. 800 (1973). · cites it 6× “28 U. S. C. § 1336 (a). For years, the type of order here involved [*] was not reviewable.”
New Haven Inclusion Cases, 399 U.S. 392 (1970). · cites it 6× “[12] On October 19, 1967, a court of three judges, convened in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to review the Commission's order pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 1336 , 2284, and 2321-2325, upheld the Commission's action.”
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Atl. Coast Line R., 383 U.S. 576 (1966). · cites it 7× “§ 17 (9), and 28 U. S. C. §§ 1336 and 1398 (1964 ed.) to enjoin, set aside, and annul the orders of the Commission.”
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). ““(B) Actions filed by the United States or a carrier to review, implement or restrain orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission re freight overcharges, including but not limited to actions under 28 U. S. C. § 1336 and 49 U. S. C. § 304a.”
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270 (1987). · cites it 2× “With certain exceptions not relevant here, see 28 U. S. C. § 1336 (b), judicial review of final orders of the ICC is governed by the Hobbs Act, 28 U.”
Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (1962). · cites it 2× “The fact that other remedies are available, such as the suggested filing of complaints by the aggrieved carriers and shippers does not alter the situation or deprive any carrier of the right to follow the course here chosen." Id.”
West Coast Truck Lines, Inc., & Delta Traffic Serv., Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co. Marine Lumber Co., 893 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1990). · cites it 6× “On referral from the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1336 (b), the ICC determined that West Coast and Delta’s attempt to recover the filed rate constituted an unreasonable practice under 49 U.”
Malone Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States, 204 F. Supp. 745 (N.D. Ala. 1962). · cites it 9× “, brought this action under 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1336 , 1337, 1398, 2284 and 2321-2325, Section 17(9) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.”
Lynch v. Household Fin. Corp., 405 U.S. 538 (1972). · cites it 2× “§ 1334 ; review of orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 28 U. S. C. § 1336 ; cases arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce, 28 U.”
Elam v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 635 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2011). “161 ; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1336 (b) (providing district court may refer action to STB for determination).”
Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258 (1993). “But the ICA (like most statutes) contains no mechanism whereby a court can on its own authority demand or request a determination from the agency; that is left to the adversary system, the court merely staying its proceedings while the shipper files an administrative complaint…”
Show all 639 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 1336(a) — 2 cases
Ann Arbor R.R. v. United States, 368 F. Supp. 101 (E.D. Pa. 1973).
Reed v. Meserve, 353 F. Supp. 141 (D.N.H. 1973).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1336(b) — 1 case
Advance-United Expressways, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 731 F. Supp. 499 (N.D. Ga. 1990).
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.