28 U.S.C. § 1344

Election disputes

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

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action to recover possession of any office, except that of elector of President or Vice President, United States Senator, Representative in or delegate to Congress, or member of a state legislature, authorized by law to be commenced, where in it appears that the sole question touching the title to office arises out of denial of the right to vote, to any citizen offering to vote, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.

The jurisdiction under this section shall extend only so far as to determine the rights of the parties to office by reason of the denial of the right, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and secured by any law, to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in all the States.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 40 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1948–2025 · leading case: Billie Keyes v. Philip Gunn

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Billie Keyes v. Philip Gunn (2018) ca5 · cites it 8× “" In the proceedings before the district court, the defendants moved to dismiss on various grounds, including legislative immunity, qualified immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity, lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.”

Adams v. Zarnel (2010) ca2 · cites it 2× “Moreover, the Bankruptcy Code is governed by a separate jurisdictional provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1344 , which contains other restrictions and exclusions.”

Powell v. McCormack (1969) scotus · cites it 2× “See 28 U. S. C. § 1344 . Further, the Act was passed five years before the original version of § 1331 was enacted.”

Lynch v. Household Finance Corp. (1972) scotus · cites it 2× “§ 1340 ; election disputes, 28 U. S. C. § 1344 ; cases in which the United States is a party, 28 U.”

Lloyd T. Griffin v. Robert F. Burns, Etc., Thomas A. McCormick (1978) ca1 “The Fifth Circuit described 28 U.S.C. § 1344 as “the only Act of Congress conferring jurisdiction on a United States District Court in a state or local election contest (primary or general) to hear and decide the issue of who has received a majority of the votes legally cast.”

Hobson v. Hansen (1967) dcd · cites it 2× “146 (1870), the progenitor of 28 U.S.C. § 1344 (1964). The supervisors were, then, auxiliary to the administration of justice.”

Parkview Adventist Medical Center v. United States Ex Rel. Department of Health & Human Services (2016) ca1 “2016) (concluding that § 405(h)’s jurisdictional bar applies to 28 U.S.C. § 1344 ); Nichole Med. Equip. & Supply, Inc.”

Gehlhausen v. Olinger (In Re Olinger) (1993) insb “§ 157 ; 28 U.S.C. § 1344 ; and 11 U.S.C. § 523 . This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.”

Manuel Welch v. Lillie v. McKenzie (1985) ca5 “1 . The appellees suggest that these events have mooted this action.”

In Re Mercher's Enterprises, Inc. (2008) nceb “e effect or lack thereof on the efficient administration of the estate if a court recommends abstention; (2) the extent to which state law issues predominate over bankruptcy issues; (3) the difficulty or unsettled nature of the applicable law; (4) the presence of a related…”

Keyes v. Gunn (2017) mssd · cites it 2× “Defendants considered only nine affidavit ballots and they chose to eliminate five. Therefore, between one and five of plaintiffs’ ballots were canceled.”

Hubbard v. Ammerman (1972) ca5 · cites it 4× “Except for the narrow exception set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1344 , (of which, more later) there is no Act of Congress which has conferred upon federal district courts jurisdiction to hear and decide, solely as an election contest, what candidate received a majority of the votes…”

Show all 40 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.