28 U.S.C. § 1347
Partition action where United States is joint tenant
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action commenced by any tenant in common or joint tenant for the partition of lands where the United States is one of the tenants in common or joint tenants.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases, 1954–2015 · leading case: Lloyd R. Stubbs, Individually and as Administrator of the Estates of John R. Stubbs and Mary E. Stubbs v. United States
Lloyd R. Stubbs, Individually and as Administrator of the Estates of John R. Stubbs and Mary E. Stubbs v. United States (1980)
“28 U.S.C. § 1347 16 vests the district courts with original jurisdiction over partition actions where the United States is a tenant in common or joint tenant.”
Madruga v. Superior Court of Cal., County of San Diego (1954)
“[15] It is noteworthy that Congress has explicitly placed partition actions under federal jurisdiction only where the United States is a tenant, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1347 , 2409. Partition of real estate belonging to Oklahoma Indians has been made subject to state laws.”
Walter Fuller Aircraft Sales, Inc. v. The Republic of the Philippines and the Philippines Presidential Commission on Goo (1992)
“Thus, the exception contained in the first clause of § 1367(a) applies here.”
Frances C. Prater v. United States (1980)
“Rather, subject matter jurisdiction for these suits is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1347 (1976). 2 But before Prater can seek to partition land under this statute, she must clearly establish tenancy in common or joint tenancy.”
National Treasury Employees Union v. Alan K. Campbell, Chairman, United States Civil Service Commission (1978)
“§ 1346 (b) (1976) (Federal Tort Claims Act); 28 U.S.C. § 1347 (1976) (jurisdiction over actions to partition lands).”
In Re Green River Drainage Area (1956)
“The United States contends that this court is vested with jurisdiction by virtue of the federal questions raised in the Government’s petition for removal; that in any event, the federal courts have original jurisdiction over all cases wherein the United States is a party…”
Kingsbury v. United States (1977)
“§§ 1444 , 2410 (1970) (foreclosure); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1347 , 2409 (1970) (partition); 28 U.”
Murphy v. United States (2000)
“FTCA Claim The FTCA, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1347 , 2671-80, is not a general waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to intentional torts, but it contains an express waiver for “acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States…”
Arthur J. Fulcher, Jr. v. United States (1979)
“for injury or loss of property caused by the negligent or wrongful act of a government employee); 28 U.S.C. § 1347 (civil action for partition commenced by a tenant in common or joint tenant when the U.”
James E. Folsom v. United States (1962)
““This proceeding is in that court which looks to the substance rather than the form.”
Lombard v. United States (1998)
“Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1347 . B. Quiet Title Action After argument on the motions for summary judgment, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint to add additional grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction.”
Jones v. United States (1954)
“Plaintiffs allege a fair value of $100 per acre and ask for a survey to determine the number of acres wrongfully taken by the United States.”
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.