28 U.S.C. § 2344
Review of orders; time; notice; contents of petition; service
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| ||
The section is reorganized, with minor changes in phraseology. The words “as prescribed by section 1033 of this title” are omitted as surplusage. The words “of the United States” following “Attorney General” are omitted as unnecessary.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 378
cases (32 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: Bhd. of Locomotive Engi v. FRA, 972 F.3d 83 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
Bhd. of Locomotive Engi v. FRA, 972 F.3d 83 (D.C. Cir. 2020). “28 U.S.C. § 2344 ; see id. § 2342. The Hobbs Act separately commands a covered agency, upon entering a final and reviewable order, to “promptly give notice thereof by service or publication in accordance with its rules.”
Stone v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 514 U.S. 386 (1995). “is final on the date on which it is served, and a civil action to enforce, enjoin, suspend, or set aside the action may be filed after that date.”
PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton Harris Chiropractic, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 2051 (2019). “If the Hobbs Act’s exclusive- review provision, which requires certain challenges to FCC orders to be brought in a court of appeals “within 60 days after” the entry of the order in question, 28 U. S. C. §2344 , did not afford PDR a “prior” and “adequate” opportunity for judicial…”
Nat'l Ass'n of State Util. Consum. Advocates v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 457 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2006). “This appeal also addresses three threshold issues: (1) whether, under the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2344 , this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the petition filed by the Vermont Public Service Board (the Vermont Board); (2) whether the National Association of…”
Jordan Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, 904 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2018). “Although normally all challenges to an FCC rule must be made within 60 days after its entry, 28 U.S.C. § 2344 , a petition for a rulemaking may reopen consideration of prior rulemakings, see Pub.”
Fed. Mar. Comm'n v. South Carolina State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743 (2002). “28 U. S. C. § 2344 . (And unlike some other administrative schemes, see, e.”
CTIA-The Wireless Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 530 F.3d 984 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “See 28 U.S.C. § 2344 . We are not concerned that the Commission will use this holding to delay unnecessarily judicial review of its rules going forward.”
Council Tree Commc'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 503 F.3d 284 (3rd Cir. 2007). “28 U.S.C. § 2344 . “[T]he 60 day period for -seeking judicial review set forth in the Hobbs Act is jurisdictional in nature, and may not be enlarged or altered by the courts.”
Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197 (2011). “The Government also notes that lower court decisions have uniformly held that the Hobbs Act’s 60-day time limit for filing a petition for review of certain final agency decisions, 28 U. S. C. § 2344 , is jurisdictional. Brief for Respondent 18.”
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270 (1987). “" 28 U. S. C. § 2344 . The Court appears to agree that all of these elements were satisfied here.”
ACA Int'l v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “28 U.S.C. § 2344 . We have consistently held that the phrase "party aggrieved" requires that petitioners have been parties to the underlying agency proceedings, not simply parties to the present suit who are aggrieved in a constitutional (Article III) sense.”
Nat. Resources Def. Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & United States of Am., 666 F.2d 595 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “The order under review here is “reviewable under this chapter”, 28 U.S.C. § 2344 , because 28 U.S.C. § 2342 grants the courts of appeals “exclusive jurisdiction .”
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.