28 U.S.C. § 256

Trials at ports other than New York

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The chief judge may designate any judge or judges of the court to proceed, together with necessary assistants, to any port or to any place within the jurisdiction of the United States to preside at a trial or hearing at the port or place.(b) Upon application of a party or upon his own initiative, and upon a showing that the interests of economy, efficiency, and justice will be served, the chief judge may issue an order authorizing a judge of the court to preside in an evidentiary hearing in a foreign country whose laws do not prohibit such a hearing: Provided, however, That an interlocutory appeal may be taken from such an order pursuant to the provisions of section 1292(d)(1) of this title, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may, in its discretion, consider the appeal.(Added Pub. L. 91–271, title I, § 109, June 2, 1970, 84 Stat. 277; amended Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 107, Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 28.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1982—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 97–164 substituted “section 1292(d)(1) of this title, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may, in its discretion, consider the appeal” for “section 1541(b) of this title, subject to the discretion of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals as set forth in that section”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

Effective Date

Pub. L. 91–271, title I, § 122, June 2, 1970, 84 Stat. 281, provided that:“(a) This title [see Short Title of 1970 Amendment note set out under section 1 of this title] shall become effective on October 1, 1970, and shall thereafter apply to all actions and proceedings in the Customs Court and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals except those involving merchandise entered before the effective date for which trial has commenced by such effective date.“(b) An appeal for reappraisement timely filed with the Bureau of Customs before the effective date, but as to which trial has not commenced by such date, shall be deemed to have had a summons timely and properly filed under this title. When the judgment or order of the United States Customs Court has become final in this appeal, the papers shall be returned to the appropriate customs officer to decide any remaining matters relating to the entry in accordance with section 500 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended [section 1500 of Title 19, Customs Duties]. A protest or summons filed after final decision on an appeal for reappraisement shall not include issues which were raised or could have been raised on the appeal for reappraisement.“(c) A protest timely filed with the Bureau of Customs before the effective date of enactment of this Act [June 2, 1970], which is disallowed before that date, and as to which trial has not commenced by such date, shall be deemed to have had a summons timely and properly filed under this title.“(d) All other provisions of this Act [see Short Title notes set out under section 1 of this title and section 1500 of Title 19] shall apply to appeals and disallowed protests deemed to have had summonses timely and properly filed under this section.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: In Re United States

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re United States (1989) cafc “28 U.S.C. § 256 (b). In explaining the advantages of giving the judges of the Court of International Trade this authority, the House Committee Report stated: The authority to conduct evidentiary hearings in foreign countries has been exercised in the past by the commissioners…”

United States v. Universal Fruits and Vegetables Corporation David Pai, AKA Shih Wei Pai Jason Pai, AKA Chung Sheng Pai (2004) ca9 “For, while the CIT’s venue already is effectively universal, see 28 U.S.C. § 256 , the number of district court venues in which FCA suits could be brought would be quite limited in the absence of § 3732.”

United States v. Mizrahie (1985) cit · cites it 2× “” 28 U.S.C. § 256 (1982). See U.S.C.I.T. Rule 77(c)(2).”

Michelin Tire Corp. v. United States (1979) cusc “” and in 28 U.S.C. § 256 to designate judges to preside at a “trial or hearing.”

United States v. Universal Fruits and Vegetables Corporation David Pai, AKA Shih Wei Pai Jason Pai, AKA Chung Sheng Pai (2004) ca9 “For, while the CIT's venue already is effectively universal,- see 28 U.S.C. § 256 , the number of district court venues in which FCA suits could be brought would be quite limited in the absence of § 3732.”

Simod America Corp. v. United States (1986) cit · cites it 6× “Plaintiff maintains that the hearing in Padova will afford the court an opportunity "to view the manufacturing process in issue * * * and to receive testimony relating to the diverse and complex manufacturing processes associated with the creation of finished footwear.”

United States v. Universal Fruits & Vegetables Corp. (2005) cit · cites it 2× “For, while the CIT’s venue already is effectively universal, see 28 U.S.C. § 256 , 7 the number of district court venues in which FCA suits could be brought would be quite limited in the absence of § 3732.”

Zoltek Corp. v. United States (1989) cit · cites it 4× “28 U.S.C. § 256 (a) (1982). These statutory provisions are implemented by Rule 77(c)(2) of the Rules of the United States Court of International Trade, which provides: *1101 (c) Place of Trials or Hearings (2) Other Than New York City.”

Shannon Luminous Material Co. v. United States (1972) cusc · cites it 2× “2(a) of the present rules of this court provides: “(a) In the United States: An action shall be assigned by the chief judge to a judge or judges for purposes of trial, evi-dentiary hearing, or oral argument of a dispositive motion, at such time and in such place as the chief…”

United States v. Daewoo International (America) Corp. (1989) cit “4 Defendant’s contention that the Court’s distinct capacity to hold proceedings at "any place within the jurisdiction of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 256 (a) (1982), prevents an adoption of a more flexible rule for service of subpoenas similarly lacks merit.”

Demand Dogs, LLC. v. John Blair, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, v. Keith Smith and Brian Anderson, Third Party Defenda (2025) mad “Federal Question Jurisdiction Count I of Blair’s STACP asserts a claim of inventorship under 28 U.S.C. § 256 (“§ 256”) as to identified claims in the 329 Patent and alleges that claims 1-4, 9-10, and 12-13 are directly derived from his original ideas and contributions, showing…”

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.