28 U.S.C. § 2463
Property taken under revenue law not repleviable
All property taken or detained under any revenue law of the United States shall not be repleviable, but shall be deemed to be in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction thereof.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1952–2021 · leading case: Bowers v. J & M Disc. Towing, LLC., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (D.N.M. 2006).
Bowers v. J & M Disc. Towing, LLC., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (D.N.M. 2006). “28 U.S.C. § 2463 . Congress has placed the adjudication of interests in property that federal officers seize “exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal courts.”
Rea v. United States, 350 U.S. 214 (1956). “Since the crime charged was a violation of a provision of the Internal Revenue Code, 28 U. S. C. § 2463 was applicable. That section provides against the return of the property in the following words: "All property taken or detained under any revenue law of the United States…”
Seattle Ass'n of Credit Men, a Corp. v. United States, 240 F.2d 906 (9th Cir. 1957). “One of the newly-cited statutes relied upon by appellant as establishing jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C.A. § 2463 . 3 Under this statute, property “taken” or “detained” under any revenue law of the United States is deemed to be in the custody of the law and subject to the orders and…”
First Nat'l Bank of Emlenton, Pennsylvania v. United States, 265 F.2d 297 (1st Cir. 1959). “Finally, our attention is directed to the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 2463 that all property taken under a revenue law is in custody of the law and subject to the order of an appropriate federal court.”
Bartell v. Riddell, 202 F. Supp. 70 (S.D. Cal. 1962). “§ 41 (5)) and 28 U.S.C. § 2463 , 2 and that the United States, or its duly authorized agent, has consented to become a party to an action of this type by virtue of 28 U.”
United States v. Douglas Wayne Brown, 835 F.2d 176 (8th Cir. 1987). “Citing 28 U.S.C. § 2463 , 4 he characterizes the issue as one of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Berry v. Ketchikan Pub. Utils., 727 P.2d 762 (Alaska 1986). “Berry appeals this ruling. KPU requests costs and actual attorney’s fees pursuant to Appellate Rule 508(e) because it claims that Berry’s appeal is frivolous.”
United States v. First Nat'l City Bank, & Milton F. Meissner, Proposed Intervenor-Appellant, 568 F.2d 853 (1st Cir. 1977). “404 (1960), the Supreme Court, in holding that summary proceedings instituted by a private party to quash an IRS levy on property held by a stakeholder are not authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2463 , carefully qualified its holding as follows: “In the absence of express statutory…”
Raffaele v. Granger, Collector of Internal Revenue, 196 F.2d 620 (3rd Cir. 1952). “…the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction thereof.” 28 U.S.C. § 2463 .”
New Hampshire Fire Ins. v. Scanlon, 362 U.S. 404 (1960). “For this contention petitioner relies on 28 U. S. C. § 2463 which reads as follows: .”
United States v. Averell, 296 F. Supp. 1004 (E.D.N.Y 1969). “28 U.S.C. § 2463 ; 4 D.C. Code § 4-158 . In the event the evidence is perishable, the court might frame an order preserving the rights of the defendant, or might order an immediate trial.”
United States v. Augspurger, 452 F. Supp. 659 (W.D.N.Y. 1978). “Section 2463 of Title 28 of the United States Code states that “[a]ll property taken or detained under any revenue law of the United States shall not be repleviable, but shall be deemed to be in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of…”
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.