28 U.S.C. § 1444
Foreclosure action against United States
Any action brought under section 2410 of this title against the United States in any State court may be removed by the United States to the district court of the United States for the district and division in which the action is pending.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 243
cases (36 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Leathers v. Leathers, 856 F.3d 729 (10th Cir. 2017).
Leathers v. Leathers, 856 F.3d 729 (10th Cir. 2017). ““As a trade off for the waiver of sovereign immunity, [ 28 U.S.C. § 1444 ] permits the government to remove to federal court any such case initiated in state court.”
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996). “, at 700-701 ; see 28 U. S. C. § 1444 (authorizing removal of actions brought against the United States, pursuant to 28 U.”
Rodas v. Seidlin, 656 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2011). “The United States removed the case to federal district court, relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1444 , which provides for removal of certain foreclosure actions where the United States is a defendant, and added claims of its own.”
Horizon Bank & Trust Co. v. Flaherty, 309 F. Supp. 2d 178 (D. Mass. 2004). “Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1444 and 2410, the United States timely removed the case to this Court.”
Ec Robinson Lumber Co. v. Hughes, 355 F. Supp. 1363 (E.D. Mo. 1972). “The government removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1444 . Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.”
Hussain v. Boston Old Colony Ins., 311 F.3d 623 (5th Cir. 2002). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1444 (2000). In this case the point at which the IRS filed its lien does not affect the priority of claims adjudicated here.”
Peggy Ann Schaefer Spotts v. United States, 429 F.3d 248 (6th Cir. 2005). “The United States removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1444 . The facts are as follows.”
Grubbs v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp., 405 U.S. 699 (1972). “After calling for supplemental briefs on the issue, the Court of Appeals decided that the only conceivable basis for jurisdiction of the action in the District Court was the removal by the United States purportedly in accordance with 28 U. S. C. § 1444 . That court held,…”
In Re 1994 Exxon Chem. Fire, 558 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2009). “In turn, the United States, without objection, removed the action to federal district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1444 (providing that when the United States is made a party to any action in state court under 28 U.”
Hudson Cnty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders v. Jorge Morales, Twp. of Secaucus, Internal Revenue Serv. & Plaza Nat'l Bank, 581 F.2d 379 (3rd Cir. 1978). “The petition stated that the action is “subject to removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1444 in that the complaint appears to allege a claim to quiet title to personal property on which the United States claims a lien.”
United States v. Brosnan, 363 U.S. 237 (1960). “" [10] 28 U. S. C. § 1444 . [11] The Senate Committee which reported the bill which became the predecessor of § 7424 stated (S.”
Quality Loan Serv. Corp. v. 24702 Pallas Way, Mission Viejo, CA 92691, 635 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2011). “A The United States invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1444 as its basis for removing the action.”
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.