28 U.S.C. § 1357
Injuries under Federal laws
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action commenced by any person to recover damages for any injury to his person or property on account of any act done by him, under any Act of Congress, for the protection or collection of any of the revenues, or to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in any State.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Berman v. United States
Berman v. United States (2001)
“§ 1346 (a)(2) (1994); and 28 U.S.C. § 1357 (1994). None of these statutes assists Berman.”
Lynch v. Household Finance Corp. (1972)
“§ 1353 ; and injuries under federal law, 28 U. S. C. § 1357 . [18] "While this bill applies the $10,000 minimum limitation to cases involving Federal questions, its effect will be greater on diversity cases since many of the so-called Federal question cases will be exempt from…”
City of Albuquerque v. United States Department of the Interior (2004)
“In its jurisdictional statement, the City claims "[p]ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1357 , the court below had jurisdiction to adjudicate the federal question presented by the City’s request for review of the final action of a federal agency.”
Joseph v. J.J. Mac Intyre Companies, LLC (2003)
“On June 10, 2002, Defendant removed this matter to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1357 and 1367. Both parties consented to proceed before the Court pursuant to 28 U.”
Joseph v. JJ Mac Intyre Companies, LLC (2002)
“(hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) removed this matter to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1357 and 1367. Both parties consented to proceed before the Court pursuant to 28 U.”
Herbert Phillip Schlanger v. United States of America (1978)
“§ 1331 ; and 28 U.S.C. § 1357 . In his prayer for relief, Schlanger seeks a declaratory judgment that his removal from AECP was unlawful for various reasons and that the removal from AECP breached his reenlistment contract; expungement of the reference to the removal from his…”
The Government of Guam v. American President Lines (1994)
“1963) (on rehearing) (Orleans II) (contract claims presented federal question under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1357 ), which we do not And persuasive authority because, for example, they involved claims under contracts, not challenges to the reasonableness of rates.”
Page v. Virginia State Board of Elections (2014)
“After reviewing those briefs, we determined on June 30, 2014, that further oral argument would not assist in the resolution of the issues before the Court.”
Henslee Ex Rel. Johnson v. Provena Hospitals (2005)
“The Court therefore has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1357 (a). Venue is proper because at all relevant times, the parties resided and all actions complained of occurred within the Northern District of…”
Russo v. Glasser (2003)
“6 28 U.S.C. § 1357 provides district courts with original jurisdiction over civil actions brought to recover damages for injuries sustained when a plaintiff has acted to “protect[ ] or colleet[ ] .”
Chris Aloupis v. United States (2005)
“* 28 U.S.C. § 1357 provides jurisdictions in cases “commenced by any person to recover damages for an injury to his person or property on account of any act done by him, under any Act of Congress, for the protection or collection of the revenues, or to enforce the right of…”
United States v. Hart (1982)
“*474 § 1345 (United States as plaintiff), 6 and 28 U.S.C. § 1357 (injuries under federal laws).”
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.