28 U.S.C. § 2076
Repealed. Pub. L. 100–702, title IV, § 401(c), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4650]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980).
Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980). “[8] Petitioner's reliance on 28 U. S. C. § 2076 for the proposition that this Court is without power to reconsider Hawkins is ill-founded.”
United States v. Bogle, 689 F. Supp. 1121 (S.D. Fla. 1988). “28 U.S.C. § 2076 . The Commission contends that in promulgating the Guidelines it is engaged in an analogous type of rulemaking.”
United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45 (1984). “Although we are nominally the promulgators of the Rules, and should in theory need only to consult our collective memories to analyze the situation properly, we are in truth merely a conduit when we deal with an undertaking as substantial as the preparation of the Federal Rules…”
State v. Sypult, 800 S.W.2d 402 (Ark. 1990). “[3] For example, some of this court's committees presently include the following: Supreme Court Committee on Rules Criminal, Supreme Court Committee on Rules Civil, Model Jury Instructions Criminal, Model Jury Instructions Civil, Board of Certified Court Reporter Examiners,…”
Jose Gubiensio-Ortiz v. Al Kanahele, Warden, Metro. Corr. Ctr., San Diego, California, United States of Am. v. Raul Chavez-Sanchez, 857 F.2d 1245 (9th Cir. 1988). “” 28 U.S.C. § 2076 (1982). This provision was added to the House bill by an amendment introduced by Representative Holtzman, who argued that because rules of privilege “involve extraordinarily impor *1254 tant social objectives” and “are truly legislative in nature,” 120 Cong.”
State v. Knee, 616 P.2d 263 (Idaho 1980). “[3] Although Congress made it clear that it retained ultimate authority to pass upon any amendments of the rules of evidence which the Supreme Court might later propose, Representative Holtzman sharply criticized a portion of the bill adopting the rules of evidence which amended…”
United States of Am. v. Daniel Klubock, 832 F.2d 664 (1st Cir. 1987). “See also 28 U.S.C. § 2076 (1982) (providing a "fast track” method for congressional ratification of Supreme Court amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence, save ”[a]ny such amendment creating, abolishing, or modifying a privilege," which can only be adopted by a full-blown…”
United States v. Joseph E. Hornick, 815 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1987). “(The portion of the Rules Enabling Act applicable to evidence, 28 U.S.C. § 2076 , does not contain the express repealer clause that governs the rules of civil procedure, 28 U.”
United States v. Michael Clifton Chase, 18 F.3d 1166 (4th Cir. 1994). “The original source of the Supreme Court’s authority to promulgate rules of evidence and the procedures by which those rules were to be enacted was 28 U.S.C. § 2076 . That section was repealed in 1988.”
McGowan v. Ries (In Re McGowan), 226 B.R. 13 (8th Cir. BAP 1998). “A local rule “may only be upheld if (a) it is consistent with the Bankruptcy Code in that it does not ‘abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right,’ as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2076 and (b) it is ‘a matter of procedure not inconsistent with’ the Bankruptcy Rules as required…”
Wearly v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 462 F. Supp. 589 (D.N.J. 1978). “See 28 U.S.C. § 2076 (1975). 8 . Whether the use for which property is taken is a public use is for courts to determine, Shoe maker v.”
Koerner v. Crittenden, 635 So. 2d 833 (Miss. 1994). “1988)); 28 U.S.C. § 2076 ; Sib-bach v. Wilson & Co.”
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.