28 U.S.C. § 254
Single-judge trials
Except as otherwise provided in section 255 of this title, the judicial power of the Court of International Trade with respect to any action, suit or proceeding shall be exercised by a single judge, who may preside alone and hold a regular or special session of court at the same time other sessions are held by other judges.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1946–2025 · leading case: Edwards v. Superintendent, Southport C.F.
Edwards v. Superintendent, Southport C.F. (2013)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 254 (b)(2); Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277 , 125 S.”
Fundicao Tupy S.A. v. United States (1987)
“” See 28 U.S.C. § 254 . The legislative purposes for granting this authority to a single judge were “to permit more efficient utilization of judicial manpower,” and to “speed up the final resolution” of disputes.”
National Corn Growers Ass'n v. Baker (1986)
“28 U.S.C. § 254 (1982). In an exceptional case of constitutional or other broad significance, however, the chief judge may appoint a three-judge panel to hear and resolve the case.”
Hardin County Sav. Bank v. United States (1946)
“* * *" Prior to the date on which the Comptroller General transmitted this case to the court for adjudication pursuant to Section 148 of the Judicial Code, as amended, 28 U.S.C.A. § 254 , D. M. Kelleher, Receiver of the estate of Ben B.”
Barnhart v. United States (1983)
“Towards this goal, Congress abolished the historical use of the three-judge panel in classification and reappraisement cases by enacting 28 U.S.C. § 254 (1970), which declares that the “judicial power of the Customs Court [USCIT] with respect to any action, suit or proceeding…”
SCM Corp. v. United States (1977)
“2 The present legislative policy is expressly set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 254 (1970) which declares that the “judicial power of the Customs Court with respect to any action, suit or proceeding shall be exercised by a single judge .”
United States v. Petroff-Tachomakoff (1955)
“Thus, Congress has expressly prescribed the number of judges necessary to constitute a quorum of the Supreme Court, 28 USC § 1 ; the Court of Appeals, 28 USC §46 ; the District Courts when hearing an application for certain types of injunctions, 28 USC § 2284 ; the Court of…”
Seattle Marine Fishing Supply Co. v. United States (1989)
“28 U.S.C. § 254 (1982). In an exceptional case of constitutional or other broad significance, however, the chief judge may appoint a three-judge panel to hear and resolve the case.”
Jones v. Cain (2009)
“” 28 U.S.C. § 254 (d)(1). The United States Supreme Court has noted: § 2254(d)(l)’s “contrary to” and “unreasonable application” clauses have independent meaning.”
S. J. Charia & Co. v. The United States (1956)
“, as well as in the decision of the court * * Appellant contends that the Chief Judge had the authority to assign Judge Ekwall to sit with two of the regular judges of the Second Division under Rule 2(c) of the Customs Court as well as under the statutory provision ( 28 U.S.C.A.…”
Seazengers, Inc. v. United States (1957)
“§ 1515 ), 28 U.S.C. §§ 254 and 1340, the first division of the Customs Court, being properly assigned to the trial of the protest case, was thereby clothed by law with the authority to determine the classification of the imported merchandise, and, having jurisdiction of the…”
S. J. Charia & Co. v. United States (1954)
“*740 “On October 13, 1953, before said date of hearing at New York (11/9/53) Plaintiff filed a motion for an order by the Chief Judge to assign Judge Ekwall to the Second Division for the further proceedings and decision in this case, which action was made in accordance with…”
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.