28 U.S.C. § 1358
Eminent domain
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all proceedings to condemn real estate for the use of the United States or its departments or agencies.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1950–2025 · leading case: Clear Sky Car Wash, LLC v. City of Chesapeake, 910 F. Supp. 2d 861 (E.D. Va. 2012).
Clear Sky Car Wash, LLC v. City of Chesapeake, 910 F. Supp. 2d 861 (E.D. Va. 2012). “§ 1346 (a)(2); (4) Original jurisdiction over condemnation actions by the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1358 ; (5) Federal judicial review of certain administrative matters pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.”
Lengen v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 317 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “28 U.S.C. § 1358 (2006) (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all proceedings to condemn real estate for the use of the United States or its departments or agencies.”
King Cnty. v. Rasmussen, 143 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (W.D. Wash. 2001). “§ 1983 , 28 U.S.C. § 1358 , and Article 1, Section 16 of the Washington state constitution.”
Town of North Bonneville, Washington v. United States Dist. Court, W. Dist. of Washington, the United States of Am., Real Party, 732 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1984). “28 U.S.C. § 1358 (1982). Thus, our inquiry stops here.”
United States v. 22.80 Acres of Land, More or Less, in the Cnty. of San Benito, State of California, 839 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1988). “*1363 District court jurisdiction for the condemnation proceeding exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1358 . We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.”
King Cnty. v. Rasmussen, 299 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2002). “§ 1983 , 28 U.S.C. § 1358 , and Article 1, Section 16 of the Washington state constitution.”
United States v. O. C. Trout, Jr. & Wife, Dora S. Trout, O. C. Trout, Jr. & Wife, Dora S. Trout v. United States, 386 F.2d 216 (5th Cir. 1967). “As the landowners would not agree that this amount represented just compensation, the United States proceeded to file a complaint in federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1358. The district court thereupon exercised its discretionary authority under Fed.”
United States v. Frank S. Buhler, 254 F.2d 876 (5th Cir. 1958). “The judgment is, therefore, vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Vacated and remanded.”
2,953.15 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in Russell Cnty., State of Alabama, & Richard H. Bickerstaff v. United States, 350 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1965). “5 None of these Acts confer any power of supervision on the courts more than that contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1358 , that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all proceedings to condemn real estate for the use of the United States or its departments or…”
Clark v. White. White v. Clark, 185 F.2d 528 (5th Cir. 1950). “Of the jurisdiction and duty of the district court in distributing the fund in a condemnation case to find out to whom it justly belongs we have no doubt, and technical considerations ought not to limit it. The Constitution requires that just compensation be made and the…”
Goodman v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 289 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “28 U.S.C. § 1358 (2006) (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all proceedings to condemn real estate for the use of the United States or its departments or agencies.”
United States v. Certain Parcels of Land, 131 F. Supp. 65 (S.D. Cal. 1955). “Jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1358 . [See Id. § 1345.] The ultimate question to be decided is whether the Government is bound to pay compensation for certain improvements affixed to the land being condemned.”
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.