28 U.S.C. § 1349
Corporation organized under federal law as party
The district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any civil action by or against any corporation upon the ground that it was incorporated by or under an Act of Congress, unless the United States is the owner of more than one-half of its capital stock.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 154
cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Stark-Romero v. National Railroad Passenger Co.
Stark-Romero v. National Railroad Passenger Co. (2011)
“The First Notice of Removal asserts that the Court has original jurisdiction over the matter, because jurisdiction exists in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1349 for lawsuits against Amtrak.”
American National Red Cross v. S. G. (1992)
“941 ; codified as amended at 28 U. S. C. § 1349 . [2] Since the effect of the 1925 law on nonstock corporations like the Red Cross is unclear, see, e.”
Jackson v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1978)
“In their answers, neither defendant challenged the jurisdiction of this court, although defendant Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”) did assert that 28 U.S.C. § 1349 was not applicable to it as a jurisdictional basis for suit.”
Government National Mortgage Association v. Tyre Lee Terry, Individually, and in His Capacity of Clerk, Superior Court o (1979)
“” Second, the court concluded that 28 U.S. C.A. § 1349 3 limits the reach of 28 U.”
Veneruso v. Mount Vernon Neighborhood Health Center (2013)
“§§ 1331 , 1441; (2) “[t]he federal government has a proprietary interest in the funds the [Cjomplaint seeks to recover;” (3) the ease involves a “substantial federal question;” (4) “Mount Vernon is a federal corporation within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1349 ; and (5) Plaintiffs…”
Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corporation Retiree Medical Benefits Trust v. Raines (2008)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 1349 . Second, we do not know why Congress placed the "competent jurisdiction" limitation in Fannie Mae's charter, but not in Freddie Mac's.”
Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. (1959)
“941 , now 28 U. S. C. § 1349 . [51] Of course the many limitations which have been placed on jurisdiction under § 1331 are not limitations on the constitutional power of Congress to confer jurisdiction on the federal courts.”
Iceland Seafood Corp. v. National Consumer Cooperative Bank (2003)
“Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1349 , the federal courts had jurisdiction over NCB during these first three years.”
Burton v. United States Olympic Committee (1983)
“Congress enacted the Act of 1925, now codified as 28 U.S.C. § 1349 “to stem ‘the flood of litigation to which the federal courts were * * * subjected’ as a result of the decision in the Pacific Railroad Removal Cases [.”
Monsanto Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1978)
“To reduce this volume of business, Congress enacted in 1925 what is now 28 U.S.C. § 1349 providing that district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any action on the ground that it is by or against a federally created corporation unless the federal government owns more than…”
Henderson Ex Rel. Estate of Stoller v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (2011)
“§ 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1349 because Congress created Amtrak and the United States owns over fifty percent of its stock.”
Bonime v. Avaya, Inc. (2008)
“§ 1351 (suits against consuls, vice consuls, and members of diplomatic missions)), or corporations organized under federal law ( 28 U.S.C. § 1349 (suits by and against such corporations)), should be governed by Gottlieb , not Foxhall.”
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.