28 U.S.C. § 2104

Reviews of State court decisions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

A review by the Supreme Court of a judgment or decree of a State court shall be conducted in the same manner and under the same regulations, and shall have the same effect, as if the judgment or decree reviewed had been rendered in a court of the United States.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Platel v. MAGUIRE, VOORHIS & WELLS, PA

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Platel v. MAGUIRE, VOORHIS & WELLS, PA (1983) fladistctapp · cites it 2× “§ 2103 , 28 U.S.C. § 2104 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915 . However, none of these statutes is relevant to whether *305 Mr.”

Tokarcik v. Forest Hills School District (1981) ca3 “See 28 U.S.C. § 2104 (1976). Further, because Pennsylvania procedure calls for section 1415(e)(2) actions to be filed in Commonwealth Court, 4 which sits only in Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia, I am at a loss to understand why filing the action in the federal district…”

Weekes-Walker v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc. (2014) almd “28 U.S.C. § 2104 (a)(6). 16. Plaintiffs’ counsel have submitted a spreadsheet with the hours spent and hourly rates of each attorney and paralegal who worked on the case.”

Dingle v. Union City Chair Co. (2000) pawd “28 U.S.C. § 2104 (a)(1). The Plaintiffs have characterized this situation as a “plant closing.”

Cleveland Surgi-Center, Inc. v. Jones (1993) ca6 “” 28 U.S.C.A. § 2104 (West Supp.1993). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.”

Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary/Bartender Trust Fund v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc. (2001) ca9 “Sands also seeks to deduct, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2104 (a)(2)(B), payments to terminated nonunion employees for accrued vacation time.”

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MARINER FINANCE, LLC (2024) paed “2014) (WARN Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2104 (a)(5) and general venue statute supplement one another).”

Parental Resp Conc MM (2025) coloctapp “” 28 U.S.C. § 2104 . And it is well established in federal court that the mere “filing of a petition for certiorari does not automatically stay proceedings in the [federal] District Court.”

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.