28 U.S.C. § 1451
Definitions
Section effective first day of seventh calendar month which begins after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Palmore v. United States, 411 U.S. 389 (1973).
Palmore v. United States, 411 U.S. 389 (1973). “§ 1332 (d), and the equally discrete provision of 28 U. S. C. § 1451 , added to the Code by § 172 (d) (1) of the Reorganization Act, 84 Stat.”
United States v. Albert E. Mills. United States of Am. v. Kenneth B. Wonson, 964 F.2d 1186 (D.C. Cir. 1992). “§ 2113 (for purposes of Supreme *1191 Court jurisdiction, references to “state courts” include District of Columbia Court of Appeals); 28 U.S.C. § 1451 (for purposes of removal jurisdiction, references to “state court” include Superior Court and to “state” include D.”
Eldridge v. Berkebile, 791 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2015). “§ 1257 (b); removal, 28 U.S.C. § 1451 ; and diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.”
Wasserman v. Rodacker, 557 F.3d 635 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “28 U.S.C. § 1451 . This definition technically applies only to the chapter containing the general removal provisions of the U.”
Day v. Azar, 308 F. Supp. 3d 140 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “§ 2000e-5(f) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Regina , 504 F.Supp. 629 , 631 (D.”
Williams v. Perdue, 386 F. Supp. 3d 50 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1451 (1). So, because the Superior Court is not expressly authorized to hear Rehabilitation Act claims against federal defendants, it lacked the jurisdiction to rule on Mr.”
Lester D. Milhouse v. Edward H. Levi, United States Attorney Gen., 548 F.2d 357 (D.C. Cir. 1976). “§ 1332 (d) (the District of Columbia treated as a state for purpose of diversity jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1451 (for purposes of the removal provisions, the Superi- or Court of the District of Columbia is to be considered a “state court”); 28 U.”
United States v. Gary Stewart, 104 F.3d 1377 (D.C. Cir. 1997). “courts under Article I, Congress included a definitions section that referred to “courts” as well as “persons,” and identified the D.”
Brown v. Astro Holdings, Inc., 385 F. Supp. 2d 519 (E.D. Pa. 2005). “fiduciary, employer, plan participant or beneficiary who is adversely affected by the act or omission of any party under this subtitle with respect to a multi-employer plan,” except for actions “brought by a plan fiduciary to collect withdrawal liability” which are subject to…”
Simon v. Mitchell, 199 F. Supp. 3d 244 (D.D.C. 2016). “Generally, a defendant in a civil action brought in a state court may remove the action to a federal district court if the action is one over which the federal district courts have original jurisdiction.”
Est. of Charlot v. Bushmaster Firearms, Inc., 628 F. Supp. 2d 174 (D.D.C. 2009). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1451 . 6 . The plaintiffs do not challenge Congress's authority to enact the PLCAA, so there is no need to address Congress's authority here.”
Clinton Eldridge v. Catricia Howard, 70 F.4th 543 (9th Cir. 2023). “§ 1257 (b): defining “highest court of a State” to include “the District of Columbia Court of Appeals” for the writ of certiorari • 28 U.S.C. § 1451 (1)–(2): defining “State court” to include “Superior Court of the District of Columbia” and “State” to include “the District of…”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1451(1) — 1 case
Clinton Eldridge v. Catricia Howard, 70 F.4th 543 (9th Cir. 2023). “§ 1257 (b): defining “highest court of a State” to include “the District of Columbia Court of Appeals” for the writ of certiorari • 28 U.S.C. § 1451 (1)–(2): defining “State court” to include “Superior Court of the District of Columbia” and “State” to include “the District of…”
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.