U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART IV— JURISDICTION AND VENUE › Chapter CHAPTER 87— DISTRICT COURTS; VENUE

28 U.S.C. § 1398

Interstate Commerce Commission’s orders

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, a civil action brought under section 1336(a) of this title shall be brought only in a judicial district in which any of the parties bringing the action resides or has its principal office.(b) A civil action to enforce, enjoin, set aside, annul, or suspend, in whole or in part, an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission made pursuant to the referral of a question or issue by a district court or by the United States Court of Federal Claims, shall be brought only in the court which referred the question or issue.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 936; Pub. L. 88–513, § 2, Aug. 30, 1964, 78 Stat. 695; Pub. L. 93–584, § 2, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1917; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 130, Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 39; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, § 902(b)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 43 (Oct. 22, 1913, ch. 32, 38 Stat. 219).

This section is completely rewritten to give effect to changes recommended by the Judicial Conference of the United States.

Section 43 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., is as follows:

“§ 43. Venue of suits relating to orders of Interstate Commerce Commission.

“The venue of any suit brought to enforce, suspend, or set aside, in whole or in part, any order of the Interstate Commerce Commission shall be in the judicial district wherein is the residence of the party or any of the parties upon whose petition the order was made, except that where the order does not relate to transportation or is not made upon the petition of any party the venue shall be in the district where the matter complained of in the petition before the commission arises, and except that where the order does not relate either to transportation or to a matter so complained of before the commission the matter covered by the order shall be deemed to arise in the district where one of the petitioners in court has either its principal office or its principal operating office. In case such transportation relates to a through shipment the term ‘destination’ shall be construed as meaning final destination of such shipment.” The amendment of section 207 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., proposed by the Judicial Conference is:

“Except as otherwise provided in the Act entitled ‘An Act to Regulate Commerce’, approved February 4, 1887, as amended, the venue of any suit brought to enforce, suspend, or set aside, in whole or in part, any order of the Interstate Commerce Commission shall be in the judicial district wherein is the residence of the party or any of the parties bringing the suit or wherein such party or any of such parties has its principal office.”

The revised section substitutes the words “Except as otherwise provided by law” for the words of the conference bill, “in the act entitled ‘An Act to Regulate Commerce, approved February 4, 1887, as amended’ ”. (See section 16 of title 49, U.S.C., 1940 ed., which provides for jurisdiction and venue of actions to enforce Interstate Commerce Commission orders for the payment of money.)

Editorial NotesAmendments

1992—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–572 substituted “United States Court of Federal Claims” for “United States Claims Court”.

1982—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 97–164 substituted “United States Claims Court” for “Court of Claims”.

1975—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 93–584 substituted provisions that civil actions under section 1336(a) of this title shall be brought only in a judicial district in which any of the parties bringing the action resides or has its principal office, for provisions that civil actions to enforce, suspend, or set aside in whole or in part orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission shall be brought in such judicial district.

1964—Pub. L. 88–513 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

Effective Date of 1975 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 93–584 not applicable to actions commenced on or before last day of first month beginning after Jan. 2, 1975, and actions to enjoin or suspend orders of Interstate Commerce Commission which are pending when this amendment becomes effective shall not be affected thereby, but shall proceed to final disposition under the law existing on the date they were commenced, see section 10 of Pub. L. 93–584, set out as a note under section 2321 of this title.

Abolition of Interstate Commerce Commission and Transfer of Functions

Interstate Commerce Commission abolished and functions of Commission transferred, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, to Surface Transportation Board effective Jan. 1, 1996, by section 1302 of Title 49, Transportation, and section 101 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of Title 49. References to Interstate Commerce Commission deemed to refer to Surface Transportation Board, a member or employee of the Board, or Secretary of Transportation, as appropriate, see section 205 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of Title 49.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69 cases, 1947–2006 · leading case: Penn-Central Merger & N & W Inclusion Cases
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Penn-Central Merger & N & W Inclusion Cases (1967) scotus · cites it 3× “But 28 U. S. C. § 1398 provides, with exceptions not relevant here, that actions challenging ICC orders "shall be brought only in the judicial district wherein is the residence or principal office of any of the parties bringing such action.”
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atlantic Coast Line R. (1966) scotus · cites it 3× “Venue is determined by 28 U. S. C. § 1398 (a) (1964 ed.), which, “except as otherwise provided by law,” limits suits to the judicial district where the party bringing the action has his residence or principal office.”
Erie-Lackawanna Railroad Company v. United States (1967) nysd · cites it 4× “We may accept arguendo, without however deciding, that, as N & W urges, D & H does not have its “residence or principal office” here within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1398 (a) since its complaint fixes its principal place of business in Albany in the Northern District of New…”
Ve Holding Corporation v. Johnson Gas Appliance Company (1990) cafc “28 U.S.C. § 1398 . 13 . 28 U.S.C. § 1401 .”
Caremark Therapeutic Services v. Leavitt (2006) nysd “§ 22 ; actions for review of Surface Transportation Board orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1398 ; actions against the United States, 28 U.”
Leesona Corporation v. Duplan Corporation (1970) rid · cites it 2× “This Court finds this considered remark to be of limited assistance in reaching a decision on the question presented here, because the body of Justice Douglas’ dissenting opinion related to the question of whether the “parties bringing such action” resided in the proposed…”
In Re Turboff (1988) txsb “28 U.S.C. § 1398 (d)(2)(D). As to the present case, the uncontrovert-ed testimony of Mr.”
Manchester Modes, Inc. v. Adolph P. Schuman (1970) ca2 “It would likewise greatly broaden a plaintiff’s venue choice under 28 U.S.C. § 1398 , which provides for review of ICC orders in the district “wherein is the residence or principal office of any of the parties bringing such action.”
Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Pittsburgh & LER Co. (1978) reglrailreorgct “§ 1336 (b), which provides that "when a district court or the Court of Claims refers a question or issue to the Interstate Commerce Commission for determination, the court which referred the question or issue shall have exclusive jurisdiction of a civil action to enforce,…”
Davidson Transfer & Storage Co. v. United States (1958) mdd · cites it 2× “Those contentions cannot be reconciled with the requirement of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1398 that any suit to set aside an order of the Commission “shall be brought only in the judicial district wherein is the residence or principal office” of a party bringing the action.”
McLean Trucking Company, Inc., a Corporation v. The United States (1967) cc “28 U.S.C. § 1398 (1964) was also amended in substantially the same way.”
New York Central Railroad Company v. United States (1961) nysd “” 28 U.S.C. § 1398 , a part of Chapter 87 entitled, “District Courts; Venue”, directs that “Except as otherwise provided by law, any civil action to enforce, suspend or set aside in whole or in part an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission shall be brought only in the…”
Show all 69 citing cases →
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.