28 U.S.C. § 1345
United States as plaintiff
Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,684
cases (146 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States (1976)
“" The questions presented by this case concern the effect of the McCarran Amendment upon the jurisdiction of the federal district courts under 28 U. S. C. § 1345 over suits for determination of water rights brought by the United States as trustee for certain Indian tribes and as…”
United States v. Lahey Clinic Hospital, Inc. (2005)
“The United States filed a civil complaint in federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1345 alleging that the Lahey 'Clinic Hospital billed Medicare and received payment for tests and other diagnostic procedures performed by its clinical laboratory when Lahey knew, or reasonably…”
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. (1983)
“§ 666 , on the existence and exercise of federal-court jurisdiction to adjudicate federal water rights, 28 U. S. C. § 1345 . The Amendment waives the Government's sovereign immunity to permit the joinder of the United States in some state-court suits for the adjudication of…”
United States v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and Environmental Quality Board (1983)
“In doing so, appellee relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1345 , which provides in material part as follows: Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by…”
United States v. Peter Morros, and State of Nevada R. Michael Turnipseed Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects (2001)
“14 The court found that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1345 , 15 but opted to abstain based on the Pullman, 16 Burford, 17 and Colorado River 18 doctrines.”
United States v. Park Place Associates, Ltd. (2009)
“” 28 U.S.C. § 1345 ; see United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.”
United States v. City of Las Cruces (2002)
“The alleged jurisdictional bases were 28 U.S.C. § 1345 , United States as a plaintiff; 28 U.”
Marshall v. Marshall (2006)
“At the time the federal suit commenced, the estate was undergoing *310 probate administration in a state court. The Custodian had issued an order vesting in himself all right, title, and interest of German legatees.”
Jan's Helicopter Service, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration (2008)
“[6] Nearly identical language appears in 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (a)(2), which provides concurrent jurisdiction in the district courts for certain money damages suits against the United States.”
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency (2004)
“Although it remains an open question whether EPA can bypass the state judiciary and go directly into federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1345 , the availability *510 of state judicial review defeats the Government's argument that, absent EPA's oversight, there is a legal…”
Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Ariz. (1983)
“We began our analysis in Colorado River by conceding that the District Court had jurisdiction over the federal suit under 28 U. S. C. § 1345 , the general provision conferring district court jurisdiction over most civil actions brought by the Federal Government.”
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. (2006)
“, 28 U. S. C. § 1345 (United States and its agencies and officers); 49 U.”
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.