28 U.S.C. § 1352
Bonds executed under federal law
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with State courts, of any action on a bond executed under any law of the United States, except matters within the jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade under section 1582 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 110
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1951–2026 · leading case: Buddy Sys., Inc., a California Corp. v. Exer-Genie, Inc., a Corp., & E. E. Holkesvick, 545 F.2d 1164 (9th Cir. 1976).
Buddy Sys., Inc., a California Corp. v. Exer-Genie, Inc., a Corp., & E. E. Holkesvick, 545 F.2d 1164 (9th Cir. 1976). “The issue we must decide is whether a district court may entertain jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1352 1 over a suit on an injunction bond after the bond has been exonerated.”
Lynch v. Household Fin. Corp., 405 U.S. 538 (1972). “§ 1350 ; actions on bonds executed under federal law, 28 U. S. C. § 1352 ; cases involving Indian allotments, 28 U.”
Milan Express, Inc. v. Averitt Express, Inc., 208 F.3d 975 (11th Cir. 2000). “After various post judgment motions and activity, the district court ultimately determined that, while it had jurisdiction over the claim for the amount of the injunction bond under 28 U.S.C. § 1352 , it lacked jurisdiction over Milan’s claim for damages in excess of the bond…”
Koppers Co., Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., Inc., 337 F.2d 499 (8th Cir. 1964). “Continental and D & L removed the action to federal court on the ground that the suit was one on two bonds executed under a law of the United States within the meaning of the bond statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1352 . 2 Those defendants then filed an answer alleging, among other things,…”
United Tactical Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 143 F. Supp. 3d 982 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “Federal Wrongful Injunction Claim As an initial matter, Counter-Defendants assert there is no federally recognized claim for Wrongful Injunction, and even if there were, only the court issuing the injunction should be permitted to hear it.”
Cont'l Cas. Co., Inc. v. Allsop Lumber Co., Inc., Allsop Lumber Co., Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., Inc., 336 F.2d 445 (8th Cir. 1964). “The defendants on their appeal assert that the district court erred when it con-eluded (a) that it had jurisdiction of the subject matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1352 ; (b) that it had jurisdiction of the persons of those defendants who were served •outside Missouri; (c) that the…”
Commodities Exp. Co., a Michigan Corp. v. U.S. Customs Serv., an Agency of the U.S. Gov't, 957 F.2d 223 (6th Cir. 1992). “Commodities asks this Court to overturn the District Court’s denial of Commodities’ due process claim and to declare that jurisdiction is vested in the lower court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1352 and § 1355. 3 II. While the Sixth Circuit reviews Commodities Export Co.”
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Ins. v. Darel Grp. U.S.A. Inc., 253 F. Supp. 2d 578 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “Defendants argue that subject matter jurisdiction does not exist because this suit is not an “action on a bond executed under any law of the United States” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1352 . Were subject matter jurisdiction to rest solely on 28 U.”
Milan Express, Inc. v. Averitt Express, Inc., 254 F.3d 966 (11th Cir. 2001). “1 20 and 28 U.S.C. § 1352 . 21 Milan also stated that although it “did additionally claim that federal subject matter jurisdiction was granted by sections of the Interstate Commerce Act, the case was, in fact, tried as a claim for damages against an injunction bond and over and…”
Anthony Skirlick, as an Individual & as a Rep. of a Class v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 852 F.2d 1376 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “2d 86 (1977) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1352 ). The parties agreed at oral argument that (1) PATCO is an unincorporated association governed by the laws of the District of Columbia and (2) the bond in question was executed in Baltimore, Maryland and was delivered to PAT-CO in…”
Clement J. Sheeran v. Gen. Elec. Co., a New York Corp., 593 F.2d 93 (9th Cir. 1979). “Jurisdiction (a) Diversity of Citizenship While all of the 1530 plaintiffs were citizens of a state different from that of the defendant, only three satisfied the $10,000 amount in controversy requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1352 . The district court assumed ancillary jurisdiction…”
Paula C. Bass, of the Est. of Arthur C. Bass v. First Pac. Networks, Inc., & T. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 219 F.3d 1052 (1st Cir. 2000). “See 11A Wright, Miller & Kane, Civil 2d § 2972; 28 U.S.C § 1352 (providing for federal court jurisdiction to enforce bonds).”
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.