28 U.S.C. § 2322
United States as party
All actions specified in section 2321 of this title shall be brought by or against the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53
cases, 1949–1993 · leading case: Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. Great Lakes Carbon Corp., 624 F.2d 822 (8th Cir. 1980).
Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. Great Lakes Carbon Corp., 624 F.2d 822 (8th Cir. 1980). “28 U.S.C. § 2322 . The district court denied relief, stating it had considered the basic issues raised in its earlier opinion, from which no appeal had been taken.”
United States v. Drum, 368 U.S. 370 (1962). “" [4] The United States intervened as defendant, 28 U. S. C. § 2322 , and appellee Weather-Seal and appellant Regular Common Carrier Conference intervened as plaintiff and defendant respectively, 28 U.”
Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n v. United States, 339 U.S. 142 (1950). “[2] After unsuccessfully seeking reconsideration and modification of the order by the full Commission, the appellant sued the United States (see 28 U. S. C. § 2322 ), in the District Court for the District of Columbia, asking that court to set aside that part of the Commission's…”
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Atl. Coast Line R., 383 U.S. 576 (1966). “Although the carrier’s suit must be brought against the United States, 28 U. S. C. § 2322 (1964 ed.), the Commission and the shipper may intervene as of right, 28 U.”
Mail Order Ass'n of Am. v. United States Postal Serv., No. 91-1058, 986 F.2d 509 (D.C. Cir. 1993). “shall be brought by or against the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2322 (emphasis added), and that the Attorney General “shall represent the Government in the actions specified____” Id.”
Schwartz v. Bowman, 244 F. Supp. 51 (S.D.N.Y. 1965). “” 28 U.S.C. § 2322 . The United States is to be represented by the Attorney General.”
Isner v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 90 F. Supp. 361 (E.D. Mich. 1950). “Under the law, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2322 , suits against the Interstate Commerce Commission must be brought against the United States.”
United States v. ICC, 337 U.S. 426 (1949). “28 U.S.C. §§ 2322 , 2323. Congressional consent is required to authorize such a suit and congressional consent has been authorized only under the conditions requisite for a three-judge court proceeding for which this Court finds no jurisdiction, 28 U.”
W. Pac. R.R. v. United States, 382 U.S. 237 (1965). “[4] Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2322 (1964 ed.), the United States was named as defendant in the District Court.”
W. H. B. Simpson v. South W. R.R. Co. & Cent. of Georgia Ry. Co., 231 F.2d 59 (5th Cir. 1956). “” 28 U.S.C.A. § 2322 : “All actions specified in Section 2321 of this title shall bo brought by or against the United States.”
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. S. Ry. Co., 380 F. Supp. 386 (M.D. Ga. 1974). “24 (b) and to add the United States as an additional defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 2322 . According to their proposed complaints Nashville Milling Company and Mr.”
Pac. Inland Tariff Bureau v. United States, 129 F. Supp. 472 (D. Or. 1955). “The United States of America, because of statutory necessity, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2322 , was also made a party.”
S. Ry. Co. v. United States, 412 F. Supp. 1122 (D.D.C. 1976). “Intervening defendant is the Pacific Fruit Express Company (PFE), a company engaged in the furnishing of cars containing mechanical heating and refrigeration units for the protection of perishable commodities against heat and cold.”
Admiral-Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. United States, 321 F. Supp. 353 (D. Colo. 1971). “See 28 U.S.C. § 2322 . 13 . We have considered United States v.”
Watts v. Pinckney, 752 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1985). “, the Eighth Circuit was required to determine whether the failure of the district court to join an indispensable party pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2322 rendered a prior judgment void under Section 60(b)(4).”
P.A.K. Transp., Inc. v. United States of Am., Interstate Com. Comm'n, Intervenor, Currier Trucking Corp., Intervenor, 613 F.2d 351 (1st Cir. 1980). “but also by the United States acting as statutory respondent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2322 , 2344. 3 . The employee board decision reflects that only the evidence of the four shippers supporting P.”
Columbia Shippers & Receivers Ass'n, Inc. v. United States, 301 F. Supp. 310 (D. Del. 1969). “§§ 1336 and 1398; each action is brought against the United States as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2322 . Applications in each action for a hearing before a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.”
T. I. McCormack Trucking Co. v. United States, 251 F. Supp. 526 (D.N.J. 1966). “§ 2284 , and plaintiff has properly joined the United States as defendant as required by Title 28 U.S.C. § 2322 . II. The nub of this dispute is the interpretive question raised by the Commission’s construction of the following portion of the Sub 70 Certificate, which permits…”
Boston & Maine R.R. v. United States, 208 F. Supp. 661 (D. Mass. 1962). “The United States of America is made defendant under the authority of 28 U. S.C. § 2322. The Interstate Commerce Commission, Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company (L & N), and Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company (Coast Line) are intervening defendants.”
Iowa Power & Light Co. v. Burlington N., Inc., 647 F.2d 796 (8th Cir. 1981). “6 The United States and Interstate Commerce Commission are respondents pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2322 and Fed.R.App.P. 15(a). This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.”
Elgin, Joliet & E. Ry. Co. v. Benj. Harris & Co., 245 F. Supp. 467 (N.D. Ill. 1965). “§ 1009 (e), the underlying issues would have been identical to those presented in the complaint originally filed here by EJ&E, although, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2322 , the United States would be denominated as the party defendant.”
Gateway Transp. Co. v. United States, 173 F. Supp. 822 (W.D. Wis. 1959). “The defendant, United States of America, is named a party pursuant to the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 2322 . In the administrative proceeding the Commission granted, over the protests of competing carriers, the application of the plaintiff, Gateway Transportation Company,…”
Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. United States, 242 F. Supp. 14 (M.D. Fla. 1965). “See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2322 , 2323 ; 49 U.S.C. § 17 (9).”
Holmes v. United States, 89 F. Supp. 894 (S.D.N.Y. 1949). “That section lays down conditions precedent to judicial review of the order of March 10.”
Smith & Solomon Trucking Co. v. United States, 255 F. Supp. 243 (D.N.J. 1966). “The United States of America is joined as a statutory party defendant under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2322 . Jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.”
Shippers' Car Supply Comm. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 160 F. Supp. 939 (D. Or. 1958). “The ' defendants, Commission and United States of America, were named defendants pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 2322 . The intervening defendant S.”
Nemitz v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 309 F. Supp. 575 (N.D. Ohio 1969). “§ 1336 must be brought by or against the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 2322 , and must be filed within 90 days after the date the Commission order becomes final, 28 U.”
Ann Arbor R.R. v. United States, 368 F. Supp. 101 (E.D. Pa. 1973). “The United States, although by statute a defendant in these proceedings, 28 U.S.C. § 2322 , supports the relief sought by plaintiffs.”
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co., 334 F.2d 46 (5th Cir. 1964). “28 U.S.C.A. § 2322 : “All actions specified in section 2321 of this title shall bo brought by or against the United States.”
Lake Carriers'Ass'n v. United States, 399 F. Supp. 386 (N.D. Ohio 1975). “1 2 Lake Carriers brought this action against the United States 3 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2322 ; however, the defendants now include the Interstate Commerce Commission, Consumers Power Company, and four railroads, 3 all of whom have intervened.”
Coyle Lines Inc. v. United States, 115 F. Supp. 272 (E.D. La. 1953). “Action was brought against the United States as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2322 . John I. Hay Company, Texas and New Orleans Railroad Company and the Missouri Pacific Lines have intervened as plaintiffs and the Interstate Commerce Commission and Gulf-Canal have intervened as…”
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 282 F. Supp. 430 (D. Kan. 1968). “The United States was made a party as required by 28 U.S. C. § 2322. Plaintiff Santa Fe is a common carrier by railroad subject to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.”
Chem. Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. United States, 376 F. Supp. 508 (D. Del. 1974). “28 U.S.C. § 2322 . 5 . 28 U.S.C. § 2323 .”
Florida-Texas Freight, Inc. v. United States, 373 F. Supp. 479 (S.D. Fla. 1974). “A three-judge court has been convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2322 . BACKGROUND OF THE CASE N.”
Dep't of Pub. Serv. Reg. v. United States, 344 F. Supp. 1386 (D. Mont. 1972). “The action was commenced, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2322 , against the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission.”
Canadian Nat'l Ry. Co. v. United States, 425 F. Supp. 290 (D.D.C. 1976). “28 U.S.C. § 2322 requires the United States be named a defendant in any action to enjoin, suspend, annul, or set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.”
Nat'l Ass'n of Recycling Indus., Inc. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 585 F.2d 522 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “As a statutory respondent, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2322 , 2342 (1970), the United States, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Energy Administration, challenges the Commission’s order in its entirety.”
Ass'n of Am. Railroads v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 600 F.2d 989 (D.C. Cir. 1979). “and the United States, named as a respondent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2322 (1970), filed a joint Brief herein referred to as the Government’s Brief).”
Nat'l Elec. Mfg. Ass'n v. United States, 407 F. Supp. 598 (W.D. Pa. 1976). “This action was brought against the United States as defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2322 , and the Commission has appeared as a defendant pursuant to 28 U.”
W. Trucking Co. v. United States, 312 F. Supp. 1288 (E.D. Mo. 1970). “The United States was named as a party defendant as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2322 . Anderson and Lucas are intervening defendants.”
Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. United States, 369 F. Supp. 621 (W.D. Ky. 1973).
Pac. Fruit Express Co. v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R.R., 524 F.2d 1025 (9th Cir. 1975).
Ad Hoc Comm. on Consum. Prot. v. United States, 317 F. Supp. 370 (D.D.C. 1970).
United States v. City of Jackson, 320 F.2d 870 (5th Cir. 1963).
Barnes Freight Line, Inc. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 569 F.2d 912 (5th Cir. 1978).
Omaha Grain Exch. v. United States, 194 F. Supp. 929 (D. Neb. 1961).
Saginaw Transfer Co. v. United States, 312 F. Supp. 662 (E.D. Mich. 1970).
Martin Bros. Box Co. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 128 F. Supp. 919 (D. Or. 1953).
Baggett Transp. Co. v. United States, 116 F. Supp. 167 (N.D. Ala. 1953).
Midwest Emery Freight Sys., Inc. v. United States, 202 F. Supp. 229 (N.D. Ill. 1961).
S. Motor Carriers Rate Conf. Inc. v. United States, 417 F. Supp. 1186 (D.D.C. 1976).
Refrigerated Transp. Co., Inc. v. United States, 390 F. Supp. 845 (N.D. Ga. 1975).
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. United States, 405 F. Supp. 845 (S.D.N.Y. 1975).
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.