28 U.S.C. § 1403
Eminent domain
Proceedings to condemn real estate for the use of the United States or its departments or agencies shall be brought in the district court of the district where the land is located or, if located in different districts in the same State, in any of such districts.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1955–2013 · leading case: Litgo New Jersey Inc. v. Commissioner New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Litgo New Jersey Inc. v. Commissioner New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (2013)
“”); 28 U.S.C. § 1403 (eminent domain) (“Proceedings to condemn real estate for the use of the United States or its departments or agencies shall be brought in the district court of the district where the land is located or, if located in different districts in the same State, in…”
Lengen v. United States (2011)
“”); 28 U.S.C. § 1403 (2006) (“Proceedings to condemn real estate for the use of the United States or its departments or agencies shall be brought in the district court of the district where the land is located or, if located in different districts in the same State, in any of…”
United States v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company (1965)
“The conflict arises out of the selection by the United States of judicial condemnation proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1403 which, so far as relevant here, provides that condemnation proceedings be brought by the United States “in the district where the land is located.”
Goodman v. United States (2011)
“”); 28 U.S.C. § 1403 (2006) (“Proceedings to condemn real estate for the use of the United States or its departments or agencies shall be brought in the district court of the district where the land is located or, if located in different districts in the same State, in any of…”
Morgan v. United States (2011)
“”); 28 U.S.C. § 1403 (2006) (“Proceedings to condemn real estate for the use of the United States or its departments or agencies shall be brought in the district court of the district where the land is located or, if located in different districts in the same State, in any of…”
United States v. 1,197.29 Acres of Land (1991)
“28 U.S.C. § 1403 . 4. The relevant statutory provision provides in pertinent part: Upon the filing [of] said declaration of taking and of the deposit in the court, to the use of the persons entitled thereto, of the amount of the estimated compensation stated in said declaration,…”
Capitol Hardware Manufacturing Co. v. NATCO, Inc. (1989)
“See, for example, 28 U.S.C. § 1403 (condemnation proceedings for land to be used for United States shall be brought where the land is located); Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Co.”
United States v. 3,035.73 Acres of Land (1980)
“§ 1358 and venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1403 , this being an action to condemn real estate for the use of the United States and said real estate being located within this district.”
United States v. 450 Acres of Land, More or Less, Known as Barnwell Island, Situate in Chatham County, Georgia, and E. B (1955)
““The Court: Well, I think I have got it in my mind. I am going back to Georgia law where a man has been in possession of property for seven years under an adverse claim and stays in possession and cultivates it.”
Commonwealth v. Bartlett (1967)
“However, the decision in that case was confined to the narrow issue of resolving a conflict between two federal statutory provisions by holding that a proceeding by the United States to take property of a railroad in reorganization, by eminent domain, brought in conformity with…”
United States v. An Easement & Right-of-Way 200 Feet Wide & 874 Feet Long Over Certain Land (1964)
“” 28 U.S. C. § 1403. Section 25 of the TVA Act likewise provides that “The proceedings shall be instituted in the United States district court for the district in which the land, easement, right-of-way, or other interest, or any part thereof, is located.”
Town of Durham v. United States (1958)
“All of these considerations, when coupled with the quoted legislative history of section 666, demonstrate that it was not the legislative intent to waive sovereign immunity for the purposes of allowing a state or federal court to adjudicate issues involving the right of the…”
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.