28 U.S.C. § 135
Salaries of district judges
Each judge of a district court of the United States shall receive a salary at an annual rate determined under section 225 of the Federal Salary Act of 1967 (2 U.S.C. 351–361), as adjusted by section 461 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1960–2014 · leading case: United States v. Will
United States v. Will (1980)
“” 28 U. S. C. § 135 . Similarly phrased statutes apply to all other Article III judges.”
Will v. United States (1979)
“Plaintiff asserts that this adjustment is part of the compensation to which they are entitled by law, and consequently, Congress’ refusal to pay those adjustments violates the prohibition in the Compensation Clause which prohibits the diminishment of a judge’s salary during his…”
Eastern States Petroleum Corporation v. William P. Rogers, Attorney General of the United States (1960)
“§ 252 (1958) with 28 U.S.C. § 135 (1958); judges of the Court *615 of Customs and Patent Appeals receive the same salary as circuit judges, compare 28 U.”
Thomas R. Cornish v. United States (2013)
“It also follows that the current salary of district court judges under 28 U.S.C. § 135 is $197,100. See Beer v. United States, 111 Fed.”
Williams v. United States (1999)
“The compensation of a federal district judge, appointed pursuant to Article III, is defined, in part, at 28 U.S.C. § 135 , which provides in pertinent part: “Each judge of a district court of the United States shall receive a salary at an annual rate determined under Section 225…”
Jefferson County v. Acker (1995)
“It is indeed sobering to reflect upon the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars involved in the resolution of the issue before this court.”
Jefferson County v. Acker (1996)
“The legal fees and time expended by Jefferson County in order to recover these relatively paltry amounts should be distressing enough to that county's citizens.”
Ruth v. Congress of United States (1976)
“These include the following statutes, a number of which are obviously irrelevant to the claim made: 28 U.S.C. § 135 salaries of district judges 28 U.”
Lourdes G. Baird v. United States (2014)
“First, 28 U.S.C. § 135 provides that the active duty pay of federal judges is set at a rate determined under the Federal Salary Act of 1967, 2 U.”
Dowden v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1993)
“The Court finds this a ‘brokered’ transaction solely for the purpose of creating jurisdiction in this court, and as such [is] prohibited by 28 U.S.C. § 135 [9].” 1. We first consider whether the original trustee maintained an interest in the accounts receivable or whether he had…”
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.