28 U.S.C. § 1693
Place of arrest in civil action
Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another in any civil action in a district court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1950–1988 · leading case: Harold Noel Arrowsmith, Jr. v. United Press International
Harold Noel Arrowsmith, Jr. v. United Press International (1963)
“~SIfy,~^ective July 1. 1963. . -vAs to the argument based on ■§ 11.”
Teitelbaum v. Choquette & Co. (In Re Outlet Department Stores, Inc.) (1988)
“the decision whether to allow extra territorial process is for the Congress, and not the courts, to make.”
First Flight Company v. National Carloading Corporation (1962)
“An old statute which has been retained in the Code, Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1693 , states that “Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another in any civil action in a district court.”
Foster-Milburn Co. v. Knight, Chief Judge (1950)
“; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1693 . 5 . Rule 3, Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Securities and Exchange Commission, William T. Dolan, Receiver v. Neil T. Naftalin (1972)
“, and as being violative of the prohibition of 28 U.S.C. § 1693 that “except as otlY erwise provided by Act of Congress, no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another in any civil action in a district court”.”
Jaftex Corp. v. Randolph Mills, Inc. (1960)
“During all this period the requirements as to service and venue were treated together, a not unnatural course in view of their close connection.”
Abramovitch v. United States Lines (1959)
“28 U.S.C. § 1693 (1952); Lesnik v. Public Industrials Corp.”
Jennings v. Coblentz (In Re Jennings) (1988)
“In his response, Coblentz acknowledged the jurisdictional defect and requested that the appeal be transferred to the BAP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1693 . On May 7, 1987 the Court of Appeals issued the following order: We have no jurisdiction over this appeal from bankruptcy court.”
Hydrotherm, Inc. v. Bastian-Morley Co. (1962)
“10); doubtless that is an inadvertence of draftsmanship easily remedied if the suit is to be pressed here as to Tisch.”
MacNeil v. Gray (1957)
“945 , 28 U.S.C. § 1693 , governing arrests in civil actions is, therefore, irrelevant.”
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.