28 U.S.C. § 2409
Partition actions involving United States
Any civil action by any tenant in common or joint tenant owning an undivided interest in lands, where the United States is one of such tenants in common or joint tenants, against the United States alone or against the United States and any other of such owners, shall proceed, and be determined, in the same manner as would a similar action between private persons.
Whenever in such action the court orders a sale of the property or any part thereof the Attorney General may bid for the same in behalf of the United States. If the United States is the purchaser, the amount of the purchase money shall be paid from the Treasury upon a warrant drawn by the Secretary of the Treasury on the requisition of the Attorney General.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: Lloyd R. Stubbs, Individually and as Administrator of the Estates of John R. Stubbs and Mary E. Stubbs v. United States
Lloyd R. Stubbs, Individually and as Administrator of the Estates of John R. Stubbs and Mary E. Stubbs v. United States (1980)
“§ 2409a(f); and (2) whether a substantial dispute as to plaintiff-appel *777 lant’s title prevents his assertion of a partition claim against the Government under 28 U.S.C. § 2409 . The facts appearing without dispute in our record follow, with the few instances of controversy…”
Gabriel J. Martinez v. United States (2003)
“In Beggerly , the Court similarly rejected an argument that equitable tolling is available under a limitations statute governing suits against the United States, in this case the 12-year statute of limitations for suits under the federal Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409 (g).…”
Robert K. Oja v. Department of the Army (2005)
“Beggerly, the Court held that the 12-year statute of limitations for suits against the United States under the federal Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409 (g), was not subject to tolling because of the “unusually generous” length of the time limitation and because the statute…”
Pollinger v. United States (2008)
“Plaintiff also refers to 28 U.S.C. § 2409 , see Compl. at 2, however that provision is inap-posite because it relates to civil actions for partition "by any tenant in common or joint tenant owning an undivided interest in lands, where the United States is one of such tenants in…”
Cloer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (2011)
“" 28 U.S.C. § 2409 (g); see also TRW, 534 U.”
Utah Ex Rel. Div. of Foresty, Fire & State v. United States (2008)
“The State of Utah, by and through its Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands (Utah), filed this quiet title action against the United States and private landowners pursuant to the Federal Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409 (a), and state law. Utah asserted title to the…”
Yuba Goldfields, Inc. And Placer Service Corp. v. The United States (1983)
“Similarly, the government’s brief makes no response to Yuba’s assertions concerning the government’s reliance here on its action as that of a proprietor and its reliance in the district court on a statute of limitations ( 28 U.S.C. § 2409 (f)) available only to the sovereign.”
Frances C. Prater v. United States (1980)
“The complaint alleges that jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. § 2409 (1976) and 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (f) (1976).”
Brewer v. United States (1983)
“Conclusions of Law This suit was apparently brought by plaintiff to adjudicate the disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2409 (a). Exclusive original jurisdiction therefore vests in this Court pursuant to…”
Park County, Montana, and Sweet Grass County, Montana v. United States of America, Cross Creek Protective Association, D (1980)
“On October 4,1976, Appellants filed a complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2409 , to quiet title to an easement across certain lands located within the boundaries of the Gallatin National Forest.”
Hoang Ngoc Can v. United States (1993)
“, or because this is a suit to quiet title in property in which the United States has an interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2409 , 2409a, and 2410. See Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law Supporting Plaintiffs’ Order to Show Cause (“Plaintiffs Memo”), at 15-16.”
Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad v. United States (1992)
“10, *285 1990), seeking declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2409 (a) (1988). RF & P requested extinguishment of the restrictive covenant or, in the alternative, a declaration that the covenant only required partial use of Area 3 for railroad purposes.”
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.