28 U.S.C. § 1962
Lien
Every judgment rendered by a district court within a State shall be a lien on the property located in such State in the same manner, to the same extent and under the same conditions as a judgment of a court of general jurisdiction in such State, and shall cease to be a lien in the same manner and time. This section does not apply to judgments entered in favor of the United States. Whenever the law of any State requires a judgment of a State court to be registered, recorded, docketed or indexed, or any other act to be done, in a particular manner, or in a certain office or county or parish before such lien attaches, such requirements shall apply only if the law of such State authorizes the judgment of a court of the United States to be registered, recorded, docketed, indexed or otherwise conformed to rules and requirements relating to judgments of the courts of the State.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 128
cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1949–2025 · leading case: Ward Sch. Bus Mfg., Inc. v. Fowler, 547 S.W.2d 394 (Ark. 1977).
Ward Sch. Bus Mfg., Inc. v. Fowler, 547 S.W.2d 394 (Ark. 1977). “28 U.S.C. § 1962 . The federal courts, after their judgments are rendered do not abdicate control of their judgments to the state courts but proceed, by their own powers, to direct execution.”
Tunnelite, Inc. v. Est. of Sims, 597 S.E.2d 555 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). “28 USC § 1962 provides, in pertinent part, that: Every judgment rendered by a district court within a State shall be a lien on the property located in such State in the same manner, to the same extent and under the same conditions as a judgment of a court of general jurisdiction…”
In Re: Ransford Craig Heckert, Debtor. Ransford Craig Heckert, A/K/A R.C. Heck Heckert v. Harold L. Dotson, 272 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 2001). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1962 (federal judgment acts as hen on property in state where rendered and in same manner as if rendered by court of that State) and § 1963 (giving bankruptcy court judgments same effect as district court judgment when properly registered); Fed.”
Moasser v. Becker, 828 A.2d 116 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). “Whenever the law of any State requires a judgment of a State court to be registered, recorded, docketed or indexed, or any other act to be done, in a particular manner, or in a certain office or county or parish before such lien attaches, such requirements shall apply only if…”
Walters v. Indus. & Com. Bank of China, 651 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 2011). “18, 2006); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1962 (providing for federal judgment to operate as lien in same manner and time as state judgment); Mo.”
Burshan v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 805 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). “28 U.S.C.A. § 1962 (2000) provides: Every judgment rendered by a district court within a State shall be a lien on the property located in such State in the same manner, to the same extent and under the same conditions as a judgment of a court of general jurisdiction in such…”
United States v. Renee Pratt, 728 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2013). “Two types of racketeering activity in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1962 were alleged — mail fraud and money laundering.”
Mid-State Fertilizer Co., Lasley Kimmel, & Maxine Kimmel v. Exch. Nat'l Bank of Chicago, 877 F.2d 1333 (7th Cir. 1989). “There is a controversy in the reported cases as to what injury will satisfy the standing requirement for a violation under 28 U.S.C. § 1962 (a). The defendant in this case argues, and a num *1341 ber of reported cases in this area agree, that an injury “by reason of a violation…”
Cappiello v. ICD Publications, Inc., 720 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2013). “” Under 28 U.S.C. § 1962 , upon being registered in the state court, the judgment became "a lien on the property located in [New York] in the same manner, to the same extent and under the same conditions as a judgment of a court of general jurisdiction in [New York].”
Cappiello v. ICD Publications, 868 F. Supp. 2d 55 (E.D.N.Y 2012). “Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiff sought to enforce the judgment by filing the Transcript of Judgment from the Clerk of this Court with the Suffolk County Supreme Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1962 and CPLR § 5018(b). On November 10, 2010, after the Plaintiff docketed the…”
Procter & Gamble Co v. Amway Corp., e, 280 F.3d 519 (5th Cir. 2002). “The complaint asserted various causes of action, including common law fraud, violations of the Lanham Act § 43(a), violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 28 U.S.C. § 1962 (c)-(d), and violations of the Texas Business and Commerce Code § 16.”
Elizabeth K. Knapp v. Walter P. McFarland Defendant-Appellee-Appellant, Sheriff of the City of New York, Appellant-Appellee, 462 F.2d 935 (2d Cir. 1972). “By memorandum opinion dated September 17, 1971 Judge Levet denied McFarland’s motion to vacate the Sheriff’s levy, holding that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1962 and New York Civil Practice Law & Rules (“CPLR”) § 5018 (b) the filing of the federal judgment with the New York County…”
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.