28 U.S.C. § 1363
Jurors’ employment rights
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action brought for the protection of jurors’ employment under section 1875 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2022 · leading case: Key v. Doyle, 434 U.S. 59 (1978).
Key v. Doyle, 434 U.S. 59 (1978). “” 28 U. S. C. § 1363 , added by § 172 (c)(1) of the Reorganization Act, 84 Stat.”
Palmore v. United States, 411 U.S. 389 (1973). “28 U. S. C. § 1363 , added to the United States Code by § 172 (c) (1) of the Reorganization Act, 84 Stat.”
Lester D. Milhouse v. Edward H. Levi, United States Attorney Gen., 548 F.2d 357 (D.C. Cir. 1976). “§ 1257 (making the District of Columbia Court of Appeals the “highest court of a State” for purposes of appealing to the Supreme Court); 28 U.S.C. § 1363 (excluding congressional enactments applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia from “laws of the United States” for…”
United States v. Lavance Greene, United States of Am. v. Randolph Greene, 489 F.2d 1145 (D.C. Cir. 1974). “91-358, § 172 (1970), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1363 (“For purposes of this chapter, references to the laws of the United States or Acts of Congress do not include laws applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia.”
Bd. of Sup'rs of Fairfax Cnty., Va. v. United States, 408 F. Supp. 556 (E.D. Va. 1976). “28 U.S.C. § 1363 precludes reliance on these codes sections as a source of federal question jurisdiction.”
Roosevelt F. Palmore v. Superior Court of the Dist. of Columbia, 515 F.2d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “§ 1451 to include the District of Columbia Courts within the provision for removal of cases from state courts and 28 U.S.C. § 1363 to exclude laws applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia from the chapter on district court jurisdiction and amended 28 U.”
Pereira v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 597 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “A more pertinent statute is 28 U.S.C. § 1363 , which gives district courts “original jurisdiction of any civil action brought for the protection of jurors’ employment under section 1875 of this title.”
In Re Grand Juror Webb, 586 F. Supp. 1480 (N.D. Ohio 1984). “28 U.S.C. § 1363 gives district courts original jurisdiction of any civil action for the protection of a juror’s employment under § 1875.”
Police Officers'guild, Nat. U. of Pol. of. v. Washington, 369 F. Supp. 543 (D.D.C. 1973). “590 , which Congress incorporated into Title 28 of the United States Code and which provides that for purposes of Section 1331 “references to laws of the United States or Acts of Congress do not include laws applicable to the District of Columbia,” 28 U.S.C. § 1363 (1970). The…”
United States v. Emilio Henquies Perez, 488 F.2d 1057 (4th Cir. 1974). “Compare 28 U.S.C. § 1363 (Court Reorganization Act’s basic provision divesting federal district courts of jurisdiction over local civil matters in the District of Columbia, e.”
Herian v. United States, 363 F. Supp. 287 (D.D.C. 1973). “First, the petitioners contend that 28 U.S.C. § 1363 (1970) precludes the interpretation that D.”
In re 800Ideas.com, Inc., 527 B.R. 701 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2015). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1363 (a). The S corporation return, thus, includes a Schedule K-1 pertaining to each of its shareholders.”
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.