28 U.S.C. § 2413
Executions in favor of United States
A writ of execution on a judgment obtained for the use of the United States in any court thereof shall be issued from and made returnable to the court which rendered the judgment, but may be executed in any other State, in any Territory, or in the District of Columbia.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1955–2023 · leading case: United States v. Palmer
United States v. Palmer (1985)
“Defendant Taylor maintains that the aforesaid judgment must be collected through process of the District Court of the Northern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2413 and, thus, the United States cannot register the Texas judgment in Tennessee pursuant to 28 U.”
United States v. Bernard v. Baus (1987)
“Despite the fact that judgments in favor of the United States can be executed in any district without registration, 28 U.S. C. § 2413, 4 the clerk for the United States District Court in Puerto Rico certified the judgment on September 26, 1984, and forwarded it to the United…”
United States v. Benjamin T. Thornton, Prince George's County, Maryland (1982)
“69(a), and 28 U.S.C. § 2413 . These statutes and rule provide— First, the United States Criminal Code: In all criminal cases in which judgment or sentence is rendered .”
David Saxner and Alfred Cain, Jr., Cross-Appellants v. Charles Benson, Cross-Appellees (1984)
“The plaintiffs moved for an award of attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2413 ; this motion was also denied.”
Robinson v. First Wyoming Bank, NA (1995)
“First, the court found the statute to be more comprehensive than the limited execution type of statute exemplified by 28 U.S.C. § 2413 . Moreover the clear, unambiguous and purposeful language § 1963 requires registration to "have the same effect as a judgment," rather than…”
United States v. Timilty (1998)
“69(a), and 28 U.S.C. § 2413 . Thornton, 672 F.2d at 103 .”
Edward E. GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee (1993)
“In sentence six cases, the filing period does not begin until after the postremand proceedings are completed, the Secretary returns to court, the court enters a final judgment, and the appeal period runs.... ... [I]f the court’s order was, in effect, a dismissal under Fed.”
Juneau Spruce Corp. v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union (1955)
“It was probably predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 2413 . If not, we must disagree with its conclusion for the reasons stated in this opinion.”
John Thomas Stanford v. Everett Utley, D/B/A Utley Trucking Company and E. C. Hood (1965)
“This is a different kind of statute, and more comprehensive, than the limited execution type of which 28 U.S.C. § 2413 is an example. 9 The language we have *270 quoted is clear, unambiguous and seemingly purposeful.”
Fox Painting Company and Fox Painting and Decorating, Inc., Cross-Respondents/appellants v. National Labor Relations Boa (1994)
“Lastly, the court held that 28 U.S.C. § 2413 was inapplicable in this ease.”
Clark v. Wilbur (1996)
“§ 1963 and 28 U.S.C. § 2413 . Section 1963 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: A judgment in an action for the recovery of money or property entered in any district court .”
Schueler v. Rayjas Enterprises, Inc. (1994)
“Title 28 U.S.C. § 2413 is repealed by section 220 of this Act as this remedy is now included under this section of the Act.”
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.