28 U.S.C. § 1392
Repealed. Pub. L. 112–63, § 203, Dec. 7, 2011, 125 Stat. 764]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 136
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1947–2026 · leading case: Bailey v. Shell W. E&P, Inc., 609 F.3d 710 (5th Cir. 2010).
Bailey v. Shell W. E&P, Inc., 609 F.3d 710 (5th Cir. 2010). “Bailey also claims that 28 U.S.C. § 1392 required transfer of the case to Colorado.”
Sinwell, William v. Governor Milton Shapp, Governor of Pennsylvania, 536 F.2d 15 (3rd Cir. 1976). “On appeal, the court’s attention has been drawn to the possible applicability of 28 U.S.C. § 1392 (a), 6 dealing with venue in multi-district states.”
Neville v. Dearie, 745 F. Supp. 99 (N.D.N.Y. 1990). “Plaintiff asserts venue in his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1392 (a), which provides: Any civil action, not of a local nature, against defendants residing in different districts in the same State, may be brought in any of such districts.”
Dillard v. Crenshaw Cnty., 640 F. Supp. 1347 (M.D. Ala. 1986). “Venue is also proper in this district under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1392 (a), which provides that “[a]ny civil action, not of a local nature, against defendants residing in different districts in the same State, may be brought in any of such districts.”
Cheeseman v. Carey, 485 F. Supp. 203 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). “Venue Based on Defendants’ Residence Under 28 U.S.C. § 1392 (a) Although the present record precludes a finding that all defendants reside in this district, 28 U.”
French v. Gill, 252 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. App. 2008). “Jurisdiction will no longer exist pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1392 and the Plaintiffs request that this proceeding be transferred to the State District Court in Wood County, Texas.”
Tcherepnin v. Franz, 439 F. Supp. 1340 (N.D. Ill. 1977). “Second, this civil action is of a local nature, and with all of the property located outside of the Northern District of Illinois the ven *1345 ue requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1392 (b) are not satisfied. The receiver states that Count IX as an ancillary proceeding does not…”
Go-Video, Inc. v. Akai Elec. Co., Ltd., & Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 885 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir. 1989). “§§ 15 , 22 “are not exclusive” for venue; venue can also be satisfied under 28 U.S.C. § 1392 (a)). Although the Alien Venue Act was enacted separately from the rest of section 1391, its relationship to specific venue statutes is not materially different than that of the…”
Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Prods. Corp., 353 U.S. 222 (1957). “) § 113), which authorized — just as its recodified counterpart, 28 U. S. C. § 1392 (a), does now — an action, not of a local nature, against two or more defendants residing in different judicial districts within the same state, to be brought in either district.”
Hallaba v. Worldcom Network Servs. Inc., 196 F.R.D. 630 (N.D. Okla. 2000). “”) Yet, under the approach urged by Defendants, a federal district court in another state would not have the same jurisdiction.”
Al-Ghena Int'l Corp. v. Radwan, 957 F. Supp. 2d 511 (D.N.J. 2013). “I find that they do not meet the requisites for venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1392 (b). I also find that it is unlikely that the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.”
In the Matter of Jonathan Kutner, Debtors. Daniel C. Stewart v. Jonathan Kutner, 656 F.2d 1107 (5th Cir. 1981). “During transition, the following jurisdictional grants will be in effect: (1) The jurisdiction of the court of appeals is that conferred by new 28 U.S.C. § 1392 , added by section 236 of the 1978 legislation (sections 405(c)(1)(B) and 405(c)(2) of the 1978 legislation); Id.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1392(a) — 1 case
Kirkland v. New York State Dep't of Corr. Servs., 358 F. Supp. 1349 (S.D.N.Y. 1973).
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.