U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART I— ORGANIZATION OF COURTS › Chapter CHAPTER 11— COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

28 U.S.C. § 258

Chief judges; precedence of judges

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)(1) The chief judge of the Court of International Trade shall be the judge of the court in regular active service who is senior in commission of those judges who—(A) are 64 years of age or under;(B) have served for 1 year or more as a judge of the court; and(C) have not served previously as chief judge.(2)(A) In any case in which no judge of the court meets the qualifications under paragraph (1), the youngest judge in regular active service who is 65 years of age or over and who has served as a judge of the court for 1 year or more shall act as the chief judge.(B) In any case under subparagraph (A) in which there is no judge of the court in regular active service who has served as a judge of the court for 1 year or more, the judge of the court in regular active service who is senior in commission and who has not served previously as chief judge shall act as the chief judge.(3)(A) Except as provided under subparagraph (C), the chief judge serving under paragraph (1) shall serve for a term of 7 years and shall serve after expiration of such term until another judge is eligible under paragraph (1) to serve as chief judge.(B) Except as provided under subparagraph (C), a judge of the court acting as chief judge under subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2) shall serve until a judge meets the qualifications under paragraph (1).(C) No judge of the court may serve or act as chief judge of the court after attaining the age of 70 years unless no other judge is qualified to serve as chief judge under paragraph (1) or is qualified to act as chief judge under paragraph (2).(b) The chief judge shall have precedence and preside at any session of the court which such judge attends. Other judges of the court shall have precedence and preside according to the seniority of their commissions. Judges whose commissions bear the same date shall have precedence according to seniority in age.(c) If the chief judge desires to be relieved of the duties as chief judge while retaining active status as a judge of the court, the chief judge may so certify to the Chief Justice of the United States, and thereafter the chief judge of the court shall be such other judge of the court who is qualified to serve or act as chief judge under subsection (a).(d) If a chief judge is temporarily unable to perform the duties as such, such duties shall be performed by the judge of the court in active service, able and qualified to act, who is next in precedence.(Added Pub. L. 104–317, title V, § 501(a), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3855.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesContinuance of Position of Chief Judge

Pub. L. 104–317, title V, § 501(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3856, provided that:“(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 258(a) of title 28, United States Code (as added by subsection (a) of this section), the chief judge of the United States Court of International Trade who is in office on the day before the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 19, 1996] shall continue to be such chief judge on or after such date until any one of the following events occurs:“(A) The chief judge is relieved of his duties under section 258(c) of title 28, United States Code.“(B) The regular active status of the chief judge is terminated.“(C) The chief judge attains the age of 70 years.“(D) The chief judge has served for a term of 7 years as chief judge.“(2) When the chief judge vacates the position of chief judge under paragraph (1), the position of chief judge of the Court of International Trade shall be filled in accordance with section 258(a) of title 28, United States Code.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1933–1959 · leading case: Van Wie v. United States
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Van Wie v. United States (1948) iand “§ 932 , provides that the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 258 shall be applicable. This latter section relates to the matter of assessment of costs against the United States and provides that the costs which may be assessed against the United States “shall include only what is…”
Girard Trust Co. v. United States (1947) ca3 “Section 15 of the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 258 , which had permitted such costs to be assessed in the discretion of the Court was repealed by 36 Stat.”
Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. J. G. Menihan Corp. (1940) ca2 “2d 160, 165, 167 ; 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 258 , 870. 1 This immunity would appear to apply to a governmental corporation, exercising governmental functions in place of the national government itself, just as much as does tax immunity.”
Werfel v. United States (1948) nysd “28 U.S. C.A. § 258 [now § 2412], Connors Marine Co.”
United States v. De Back (1941) ca9 “Such action on said claim may be instituted at any time within one year after the enactment of this Act, notwithstanding the lapse of time or any statute of limitation, and proceedings for its determination shall be in accordance with Paragraph Twentieth of section 24 of the…”
Mohr v. United States (1959) vaed “2d 657 , hold that the language of what is now § 2412(b) (formerly 28 U.S. C. § 258) does not cover appeals.”
Asher v. United States (1939) casd · cites it 2× “1138 , 28 U.S.C.A. § 258 . United States v. Cress, 243 U.”
United States v. Jacobs (1933) ca5 “” The costs referred to are those incurred in the trial court, and there is no provision for costs incurred in the appellate court. Our rule XXXI (4) provides that “no costs shall be allowed in this court for or against the United States.”
Zeller Marine Corp. v. United States (1946) nysd “2d 657 , the Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out that since the recovery had been allowed under the Tucker Act, costs in the District Court, at least, are under the specific section relating to proceedings under that statute, 28 U.S. C.A. § 258. 2 Libelant is entitled to a…”
Northwestern Engineering Co. v. United States (1946) ca8 “28 U.S.C.A. §§ 258 , 284. Judgment was entered for defendant and plaintiff appeals.”
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.