28 U.S.C. § 1691
Seal and teste of process
All writs and process issuing from a court of the United States shall be under the seal of the court and signed by the clerk thereof.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44
cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: United States v. David L. Smith, United States of America v. Herbert A. Bates
United States v. David L. Smith, United States of America v. Herbert A. Bates (2005)
“The argument relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1691 , which states: “All writs and process issuing from a court of the United States shall be under the seal of the court and signed by the clerk thereof.”
United States v. Torres (2002)
“) The district court observed, however, that recharacterizations of pro se petitions brought under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1691 , as § 2255 petitions are often disfavored.”
United States v. Elmes (2008)
“Elmes also points to 28 U.S.C. § 1691 “to give a statutory conformation [sic] to the requirements of a summons in Rule 4.”
West v. Spellings (2007)
“, the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1691 , and Mandamus, 28 U.S.C.”
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings (1980)
“And 28 U.S.C. § 1691 directs that: “All writs and process issuing from a court of the United States shall be under the seal of the court and signed by the clerk thereof.”
United States v. Dawes (2005)
“Finally, we reject the Daweses’ argument that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because that court’s orders and judgments included only the signature of the judge and did not have the attestation by the clerk and stamp of the seal of the court, which they…”
United States v. Klubock (1986)
“The Rule 17(a) requirement that a subpoena must be issued by the clerk under seal of the court is merely declaratory of statutory law, namely, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1691 (West 1966) which states, "All writs and process issuing from a court of the United States shall be under the seal of…”
Watson v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (1980)
“28 U.S.C. § 1691 . While orders to show cause are authorized by F.”
West v. Spellings (2008)
“, the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1691 , and Mandamus, 28 U.S.C.”
Warfield v. Byron (2005)
“” The supplemental notes in 28 U.S.C.A. § 1691 contain a cross reference to Fed.”
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Monarch Leasing Co. (1996)
“Rinaldi’s estate had made some payments to ARCO, and a settlement agreement between the parties had discharged a portion of the debt.”
Juneau Spruce Corp. v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union (1955)
“” . “Appropriate changes” refers to caption, signature, seal, etc.”
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.