28 U.S.C. § 2341

Definitions

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

As used in this chapter—(1) “clerk” means the clerk of the court in which the petition for the review of an order, reviewable under this chapter, is filed;(2) “petitioner” means the party or parties by whom a petition to review an order, reviewable under this chapter, is filed; and(3) “agency” means—(A) the Commission, when the order sought to be reviewed was entered by the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, or the Atomic Energy Commission, as the case may be;(B) the Secretary, when the order was entered by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of Transportation;(C) the Administration, when the order was entered by the Maritime Administration;(D) the Secretary, when the order is under section 812 of the Fair Housing Act; and(E) the Board, when the order was entered by the Surface Transportation Board.(Added Pub. L. 89–554, § 4(e), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 622; amended Pub. L. 93–584, § 3, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1917; Pub. L. 100–430, § 11(b), Sept. 13, 1988, 102 Stat. 1635; Pub. L. 102–365, § 5(c)(1), Sept. 3, 1992, 106 Stat. 975; Pub. L. 104–88, title III, § 305(d)(1)–(4), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 945.)

Historical and Revision Notes
	5 U.S.C. 1031.	Dec. 29, 1950, ch. 1189, § 1, 64 Stat. 1129.
		Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, § 2(a), 68 Stat. 961.

Historical and Revision Notes

5 U.S.C. 1031.

Dec. 29, 1950, ch. 1189, § 1, 64 Stat. 1129.

Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, § 2(a), 68 Stat. 961.

Subsection (a) of former section 1031 of title 5 is omitted as unnecessary because the term “court of appeals” as used in title 28 means a United States Court of Appeals and no additional definition is necessary.

In paragraph (3), reference to the United States Maritime Commission is omitted because that Commission was abolished by 1950 Reorg. Plan No. 21, § 306, eff. May 24, 1950, 64 Stat. 1277. Reference to “Federal Maritime Commission” is substituted for “Federal Maritime Board” on authority of 1961 Reorg. Plan No. 7, eff. Aug. 12, 1961, 75 Stat. 840.

Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 812 of the Fair Housing Act, referred to in par. (3)(D), is classified to section 3612 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Amendments

1995—Par. (3)(A). Pub. L. 104–88, § 305(d)(1), struck out “the Interstate Commerce Commission,” after “Maritime Commission,”.

Par. (3)(E). Pub. L. 104–88, § 305(d)(2)–(4), added subpar. (E).

1992—Par. (3)(B). Pub. L. 102–365 inserted “or the Secretary of Transportation” after “Secretary of Agriculture”.

1988—Par. (3)(D). Pub. L. 100–430 added subpar. (D).

1975—Par. (3)(A). Pub. L. 93–584 inserted reference to the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1995 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–88 effective Jan. 1, 1996, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1301 of Title 49, Transportation.

Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–430 effective on the 180th day beginning after Sept. 13, 1988, see section 13(a) of Pub. L. 100–430, set out as a note under section 3601 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Effective Date of 1975 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 93–584 not applicable to actions commenced on or before last day of first month beginning after Jan. 2, 1975, and actions to enjoin or suspend orders of Interstate Commerce Commission which are pending when this amendment becomes effective shall not be affected thereby, but shall proceed to final disposition under the law existing on the date they were commenced, see section 10 of Pub. L. 93–584, set out as a note under section 2321 of this title.

Transfer of Functions

Atomic Energy Commission abolished and functions transferred by sections 5814 and 5841 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. See, also, Transfer of Functions notes set out under those sections.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 110 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270 (1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270 (1987). · cites it 6× “§ 1336 (b), judicial review of final orders of the ICC is governed by the Hobbs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2341 et seq., which provides that any party aggrieved by a "final order" of the Commission "may, within 60 days after its entry, file a petition to review the order in the court of…”

Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985). · cites it 4× “The crucial statutory language in subsection (b) *736 of § 2239 is: "Any final order entered in any proceeding of the kind specified in subsection (a) of this section shall be subject to judicial review in the manner prescribed in [the Hobbs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2341 et seq. ]."…”

Stone v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 514 U.S. 386 (1995). · cites it 4× “The Interstate Commerce Commission's governing statute provided that, with certain exceptions, judicial review of ICC orders would be governed by the Hobbs Administrative Orders Review Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2341 et seq. See Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.”

Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999). · cites it 4× “the judicial review of all final orders of deportation" shall be that set forth in the Hobbs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2341 et seq., which gives exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of appeals, see § 2342.”

Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. v. PDR Network, LLC, 883 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “We conclude, however, that the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2341 et seq., precluded the district court from even reaching the step-one question.”

Peck v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 535 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2341 et seq. (the “Hobbs Act”), the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates properly petitioned the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to set aside the FCC’s Second Report and Order.”

Trans Alaska Pipeline Rate Cases, 436 U.S. 631 (1978). “See 28 U. S. C. §§ 2341 (3) (A), 2342 (5) (1970 ed.”

Winnebago Cnty. Citizens for Controlled Growth v. Cnty. of Winnebago, 891 N.E.2d 448 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 2× “(2000)), a federal statute similar to the Illinois Administrative Review Law in that it confers the right to judicial review of certain rules, regulations, or final decisions of federal administrative agencies. As with the Illinois Administrative Review Law, section 2344 of the…”

Penn-Cent. Merger & N & W Inclusion Cases, 389 U.S. 486 (1967). · cites it 2× “28 U. S. C. § 2341 et seq. (1964 ed., Supp.”

Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 555 F.2d 82 (3rd Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “§ 2239 (1970), *85 and the Administrative Orders Review Act of 1950, 28 U.S.C. § 2341 et seq. (Supp. 1974). The petitioner, Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Westinghouse), contends that NRC lacked authority to promulgate the amended rules.”

Ozoanya v. Reno, 968 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1997). · cites it 2× “is governed only by [ 28 U.S.C. § 2341 et seg.], 2 except as provided in subsection (b) and except that the court may not order the taking of additional evidence under section 2347(c) of such title.”

Snyder v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 258 F. Supp. 3d 893 (N.D. Ill. 2017). “Regardless of whether this Court agrees with Ocwen’s interpretation of congressional intent, final orders issued by the FCC are binding on this court under the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2341 (1). CE Design, Ltd. v. Prism Bus.”

Show all 110 citing cases →

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.