28 U.S.C. § 2343
Venue
The venue of a proceeding under this chapter is in the judicial circuit in which the petitioner resides or has its principal office, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: Gorss Motels, Inc. v. Safemark Systems, LP
Gorss Motels, Inc. v. Safemark Systems, LP (2019)
“The Hobbs Act grants the courts of appeals the exclusive jurisdiction to directly review certain agency orders by petitions for review.”
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (2015)
“§ 2149 (c); 28 U.S.C. § 2343 . D. ALDF’s Complaint On August 22, 2012, ALDF filed a complaint against USDA for declaratory and injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.”
Trans Div of Intl Assc-Smart v. Fra (2021)
“First, the panel dismissed the Unions’ petition because venue was not proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2343 where the Unions’ principal offices were not in the Ninth Circuit.”
Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. v. PDR Network, LLC (2018)
“28 U.S.C. § 2343 . The Hobbs Act specifically vests the federal courts of appeals with "exclusive jurisdiction" to "enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the validity of" the orders to which it applies, including FCC interpretations of the TCPA.”
Alliance for Community Media v. Federal Communications Commission (2008)
“M”), the National Association of Counties (“NAC”), the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (“NATOA”), the National League of Cities (“NLC”), the United States Conference of Mayors (“USCM”), and Alliance for Communications Democracy (“ACD”) 7…”
Richman Bros. Records, Inc. v. U.S. Sprint Communications Co. (1991)
“See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2343 (West 1978). Though the tariff issue may be reviewed by a court of appeals or perhaps the Supreme Court instead of the district court Richman is not effectively out of federal court.”
Merchants Fast Motor Lines, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission (1993)
“” 28 U.S.C. § 2343 . The nationwide character of NMFTA’s membership does not affect venue.”
Ethel Kravitz v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, United States of America Ex Rel. Kravitz, Ethel v. Commonwealth of Pennsy (1977)
“28 U.S.C. § 2343 (1970) empowers the court to “dispose of the matter as law and justice require.”
Newsweek, Inc. And Time, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, Magazine Publishers Association, Inc. v. United States Po (1981)
“” ITT World, supra, at 1208 (citations omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 2343 . The location of the Postal Service in the District of Columbia is of no special significance given the choice of forum provided by § 3628 of the Act, nor is the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia…”
Frank J. Laird v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, the Kansas City Southern Railway Company, (1982)
“In addition, Petitioner has complied with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2343 (“venue of a proceeding under this chapter is in the judicial circuit in which the petitioner resides .”
Gorss Motels, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (2021)
“” 28 U.S.C. § 2343 . 14 validity of . . . the order of the agency.”
United States v. American River Transportation, Inc. (1993)
“1987), the Seventh Circuit transferred that case to the District of Columbia Circuit for lack of proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 2343 . Section 2343 requires that a petition to review an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission is filed in “the judicial circuit in which the…”
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.