28 U.S.C. § 1356
Seizures not within admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of any seizure under any law of the United States on land or upon waters not within admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, except matters within the jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade under section 1582 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1957–2024 · leading case: R.J.F. Fabrics, Inc. v. United States, 651 F. Supp. 1431 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).
R.J.F. Fabrics, Inc. v. United States, 651 F. Supp. 1431 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). “According to defendant, this action involved a seizure and should be heard in district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1356 (1982). Plaintiff devoted the bulk of its jurisdictional argument to demonstrating the proposition that “the vehicle through which the merchandise has been…”
Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 801 F. Supp. 2d 383 (D. Maryland 2011). “The question of this court’s subject matter jurisdiction concerns the relationship between two jurisdictional statutes: 28 U.S.C. §§ 1356 and 1581(i). 28 U.S.C. § 1356 provides: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of any…”
Fiore v. Walden, 657 F.3d 838 (9th Cir. 2011). “§ 1331 ) and 28 U.S.C. § 1356 , [5] and do not invoke diversity jurisdiction.”
H & H Wholesale Servs., Inc. v. United States, 437 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “under 28 U.S.C. § 1356 .” Milin Indus., Inc. v.”
Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2011). “*594 § 1831 ) and 28 U.S.C. § 1356 , 5 and do not invoke diversity jurisdiction.”
Maria Jimena Ibarra v. United States of Am. Unknown Gov't Officers, 120 F.3d 472 (4th Cir. 1997). “28 U.S.C.A. § 1356 . Additionally, district courts have original jurisdiction of any subsequent forfeiture.”
Louis Sager Hunsucker, Jr. v. Robert L. Phinney, Dist. Dir. of Internal Revenue, 497 F.2d 29 (5th Cir. 1974). “Having attempted to remove himself from the tax field, Hunsucker seeks to obtain an early adjudication of the legality of the seizure by invoking a limited concept of supervisory and equitable powers of the court and a seldom used jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1356 . A.…”
State v. Bradley, 719 P.2d 546 (Wash. 1986). “The Bradleys claim that under 28 U.S.C. § 1356 (1982) federal courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving contraband seized by federal officials.”
James A. Murray v. United States, 686 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1982). “There is similarly no waiver of sovereign immunity to be found in 28 U.S.C. § 1356 , which is merely another general provision vesting jurisdiction in the district courts over certain kinds of seizures.”
Cbb Grp., Inc. v. United States, 783 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011). “Defendant argues that “it is well settled that the Court of International Trade does not have jurisdiction over seizures” and, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1356 (2006), submits that only a district court has jurisdiction to review the seizure of merchandise.”
Repub. Nat'l Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80 (1992). “Section 1521 of that Act (part of Title XV, entitled the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act) significantly amended 28 U. S. C. § 1356 to provide, among other things: “In any case in which a final order disposing of property in a civil forfeiture action or proceeding is…”
Blink Design, Inc. v. United States, 2014 CIT 56 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014). “Consequently, Defendant argues this court has no subject matter jurisdiction over these entries because 28 U.S.C. § 1356 grants exclusive jurisdiction over most seizures to the district courts.”
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.