28 U.S.C. § 1442a
Members of armed forces sued or prosecuted
A civil or criminal prosecution in a court of a State of the United States against a member of the armed forces of the United States on account of an act done under color of his office or status, or in respect to which he claims any right, title, or authority under a law of the United States respecting the armed forces thereof, or under the law of war, may at any time before the trial or final hearing thereof be removed for trial into the district court of the United States for the district where it is pending in the manner prescribed by law, and it shall thereupon be entered on the docket of the district court, which shall proceed as if the cause had been originally commenced therein and shall have full power to hear and determine the cause.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 61
cases (32 in the last 5 years), 1962–2026 · leading case: Jehan Zeb Mir v. Richard G. Fosburg, Perry Ah-Tye, & Horrace Warden, 646 F.2d 342 (9th Cir. 1980).
Jehan Zeb Mir v. Richard G. Fosburg, Perry Ah-Tye, & Horrace Warden, 646 F.2d 342 (9th Cir. 1980). “KENNEDY, Circuit Judge: When the confusion engendered by both parties’ presentation is eliminated, this appeal presents two principal issues: (a) whether a district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a suit commenced in state court and removed by federal defendants…”
Dwight Stirling v. Larry Minasian, 955 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2020). “MINASIAN Because Minasian properly removed this action as someone “acting under” a federal officer, we need not decide whether the United States itself is appropriately viewed as a “real party in interest” defendant to the case, or whether the case was removable under the…”
Matter of Marriage of Smith, 549 F. Supp. 761 (W.D. Tex. 1982). “§ 1441 (b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1442a. He alleged that the action was one removable under the aforementioned statutes because it is a civil action arising under a law of the United States, and removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.”
Gabriel I. Penagaricano v. Orlando Llenza, 747 F.2d 55 (1st Cir. 1984). “On January 29, 1982, Judge Carmen Cerezo of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico denied Penagaricano’s motion to remand, holding that removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1442a because the Advisory Board members were federal military personnel…”
State of Ga. v. Westlake, 929 F. Supp. 1516 (M.D. Ga. 1996). “Defendant removed the case on March 13,1996, under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1442a which allows for the removal of certain state criminal prosecutions against members of the armed forces.”
State of Iowa v. Johnson, 976 F. Supp. 812 (N.D. Iowa 1997). “§ 1442 , 28 U.S.C. § 1442a, or 28 U.S.C. § 1443 . The notice of removal and accompanying notice and motion for stay do not identify any of these statutes as the authority for removal of this action; indeed, they cite no authority at all for removal of any state action to federal…”
Jaffee v. United States, 663 F.2d 1226 (3rd Cir. 1981). “The presently applicable statute is 28 U.S.C. § 1442a (1976), which is derived from Section 9 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”
Cortright v. Resor, 325 F. Supp. 797 (E.D.N.Y 1971). “28 U.S.C.A. § 1442a. Upon removal, the district court is required to “proceed as if the cause had been originally com *811 menced therein and [the district court] shall have full power to hear and determine the cause.”
Margan v. Chemetron Fire Sys., Inc., 954 F. Supp. 1127 (E.D. Va. 1997). “The removal petition states that removal is appropriate under “28 U.S.C. § 1442a because all claims against the third-party defendants stem from actions taken by William B.”
State v. Dorko, 247 F. Supp. 866 (N.D. Ohio 1965). “The State of Ohio has moved to remand this criminal prosecution on the ground that its removal here pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442a was- improper. Defendant’s amended petition for removal, filed on his behalf by the United States Attorney, shows the following.”
State of Florida v. Joseph E. Simanonok, 850 F.2d 1429 (11th Cir. 1988). “Simanonok removed this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442a (1982), which provides as follows: A civil or criminal prosecution in a court of a State of the United States against a member of the armed forces of the United States on account of an act done under color of his office…”
Gamage v. Peal, 217 F. Supp. 384 (N.D. Cal. 1962). “This Court has removal jurisdic *391 tion over this entire case under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1442a. It is within the Court’s discretion to retain jurisdiction over any separable cause.”
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.