28 U.S.C. § 2105
Scope of review; abatement
There shall be no reversal in the Supreme Court or a court of appeals for error in ruling upon matters in abatement which do not involve jurisdiction.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases, 1949–2012 · leading case: Frank J. Nascone, and Spudnuts of Pennsylvania, Inc., a Corporation v. Spudnuts, Inc., a Corporation, and Frank Boyd
Frank J. Nascone, and Spudnuts of Pennsylvania, Inc., a Corporation v. Spudnuts, Inc., a Corporation, and Frank Boyd (1984)
“In coming to the conclusion that the third step of the test was satisfied by such an order, the Coastal majority relied upon 28 U.S.C. § 2105 (1976), a statute that the concurring opinion called “obscure and ambiguous.”
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc. (1996)
“963 , 28 U. S. C. § 2105 (1946 ed., Supp. II). [2] The Amendment was relied upon at least twice to prevent actual new trials.”
Andrews v. King (2005)
“Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3903, at 139 (1992), 28 U.S.C. § 2105 provides that: “There shall be no reversal in the Supreme Court or court of appeals for error in ruling upon matters in abatement which do not involve jurisdiction.”
Hyman v. City of Gastonia (2006)
“Therefore, after we heard oral argument in this case, we directed the parties to submit supplemental briefs on whether we have the authority to consider Hyman’s appeal in light of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2105 (West 1994) (“There shall be no reversal in the Supreme Court or a court of…”
Southeastern Federal Power Customers, Inc. v. Geren (2008)
“Hence, because reversal is not justified, the court need not decide whether 28 U.S.C. § 2105 , which precludes reversal by "a court of appeals for error in ruling upon matters in abatement which do not involve jurisdiction," prevents review of the abatement motion.”
Jean Hayes and Citizens National Bank v. Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Indemnity Company (1983)
“Allstate had also moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that this court is precluded from reviewing the district court’s order by 28 U.S.C. § 2105 , which states “[t]here shall be no reversal in .”
Snyder v. Buck (1950)
“Nor is there any barrier to our review of this ruling on abatement by 28 U. S. C. § 2105 which prohibits a *22 reversal by the Court of Appeals or this Court for error in ruling upon matters in abatement "which do not involve jurisdiction.”
Aetna State Bank v. Alan Milton Altheimer, Administrator With the Will Annexed of the Estate of Milton L. Altheimer, Dec (1970)
“” 28 U.S.C. § 2105 . The language of this section of the statute is clear and explicit, would seem to leave little room for construction and would therefore seem to be dispositive of the issue before us.”
Farasat v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2012)
“*203 Rather than address the propriety of the dismissal, the Fourth Circuit’s analysis in Hyman concerned its own lack of jurisdiction under the obscure 28 U.S.C. § 2105 . 11 See Hyman, 466 F.3d at 287-89 .”
United States v. Alcon Laboratories, Etc. (1981)
“As to the appeal in general, Alcon argues that we are deprived of jurisdiction by 28 U.S.C. § 2105 , which provides “There shall be no reversal in the Supreme Court or a court of appeals for error in ruling upon matters in abatement which do not involve jurisdiction.”
Vincent J. Dellaripa, Administrator of the Estate of Alfred Dellaripa v. The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Com (1958)
“To this contention, the plaintiff replies only that under 28 U.S.C. § 2105 this court lacks jurisdiction to reverse the judgment below on the ground that the action abated.”
Bowles v. Wilke (1949)
“Defendants contend that the order of dismissal was a ruling upon a matter in abatement which may not be reversed by this court for the reason that Section 2105 of the new Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2105 , provides that “There shall be no reversal in the Supreme Court or a…”
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.