28 U.S.C. § 1393
Repealed. Pub. L. 100–702, title X, § 1001(a), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4664]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1949–2023 · leading case: Moysi v. TRUSTCORP. INC.
Moysi v. TRUSTCORP. INC. (1989)
“Plaintiffs argue that the Northern District of Ohio is the proper district for this action and, in light of the recent repeal of 28 U.S.C. § 1393 by Congress, is properly maintained in the Eastern Division.”
Mohamed v. Mazda Motor Corp. (2000)
“9 However, before its repeal in 1988, there was a divisional requirement contained within Title 28 U.S.C. § 1393 . Jordon v. Bowman Apple Products Co.”
Theresa Rey v. City of Fredericktown, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation Jerry Umfleet, City Marshal of Fredericktown, an (1984)
“28 U.S.C. § 1393 (a) requires a civil action, not of a local nature, against a single defendant in a district having more than one division to be brought in the division in which that defendant resides.”
Alfred E. Keene, Cross-Appellant v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 624, Afl-Cio, R. H. Byrd and Stanl (1978)
“3 Defendants assert that the general divisional venue statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1393 , therefore must govern.”
Weiss v. York Hospital (1984)
“The Vicinage Requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1393 (a) - 811 IV. The Sherman Act Claims - 812 A.”
Medicenters of America, Inc. v. T & v Realty & Equipment Corp. (1974)
“That venue in the Richmond Division is improper under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1393 (a) and that transfer to the Norfolk Division, wherein venue is proper under the provisions of § 1393(a) would be appropriate under 28 U.”
Billy England, Frances England v. Itt Thompson Industries, Inc. (1988)
“Since ITT is licensed to do business in the Columbus Division of the Middle District of Georgia, it may be sued there under section 1391(c).”
Johnson v. Lewis (2009)
“Prior to its repeal, the divisional venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1393 provided that: (a) Except as otherwise provided, any civil action, not of a local nature, against a single defendant in a district containing more than one division must be brought in the division where he…”
Torres v. Continental Bus System, Inc. (1962)
“Since for venue purposes the Defendant is a resident of the Southern District of Texas, under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1393 (a), which reads as follows : “Except as otherwise provided, any civil action, not of a local nature, against a single defendant in a district…”
Crumrine v. NEG MICON USA, INC. (2000)
“” Furthermore, in 1988, Congress repealed the federal statute that formerly established “divisional venue” in civil cases in federal court, 28 U.S.C. § 1393 (repealed effective February 17, 1989).”
Johnson v. Merchant (2009)
“Prior to its repeal, the divisional venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1393 provided that: (a) Except as otherwise provided, any civil action, not of a local nature, against a single defendant in a district containing more than one division must be brought in the division where he…”
Williams v. City of Cleveland (2012)
“Prior to its repeal, the divisional venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1393 provided that: (a) Except as otherwise provided, any civil action, not of a local nature, against a single defendant in a district containing more than one division must be brought in the division where he…”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1393(a) — 1 case
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.