28 U.S.C. § 2647
Repealed. Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 402(29)(G), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3359]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2021 · leading case: Bomont Indus. v. United States, 638 F. Supp. 1334 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).
Bomont Indus. v. United States, 638 F. Supp. 1334 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). “However, the Customs Courts Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. § 2647 , provided that actions such as this shall have precedence.”
$6,871,042.36 & Accrued Interest, in Funds Formerly Held in Account No. 07, at Mtb Bank in New Jersey, Currently on Deposit in an Account Controlled by the United States Dist. Cour, 217 F. Supp. 3d 84 (D.D.C. 2016). “Walton, United States District Judge On December 18,2014, this Court issued a Protective Order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2647 (2012), restraining approximately $6.”
Vidrine v. United States, 846 F. Supp. 2d 550 (W.D. La. 2011). “Vidrine in the criminal proceeding alleged in pertinent part as follows: Between on or about approximately June 17, 1996, and on or about September 5, 1996, in the Western District of Louisiana and elsewhere, HUBERT PAUL VIDRINE, JR.”
Atl. Sugar, Ltd. v. United States, 511 F. Supp. 819 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1981). “…1st Sess. 181 (1979). S.Rep.No.96-249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 251 (1979), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1979 p. 381. 7 . 28 U.S.C. § 2647 .”
Greene v. United States Postal Serv., 462 F. Supp. 2d 578 (D. Del. 2006). “INTRODUCTION On September 24, 2004, Lucille Greene (“plaintiff’) filed the present action against the United States Postal Service (“defendant”) under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2647 , alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction…”
Smith v. City Bank & Trust Co., 271 So. 3d 263 (La. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 1346 (b)(1) ; 28 U.S.C. § 2647 . Vidrine v. United States , 846 F.”
McMichael v. United States, 521 F. Supp. 1273 (W.D. Ark. 1981). “28 U.S.C. § 2647 . This statute is another example of the progressive relaxation by legislative enactment of the rigor of the immunity rule.”
United States Steel Corp. v. United States, 6 Ct. Int'l Trade 238 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1983). “The action has been given a statutory priority in 28 U.S.C. § 2647 (4) and must be expedited in every way.”
British Steel Corp. v. United States, 7 Ct. Int'l Trade 1 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984). “See 28 U.S.C. § 2647 . For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for an order directing plaintiffs to submit a motion for review upon the agency record is granted.”
Smith v. City Bank & Trust Co., 271 So. 3d 263 (La. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 1346 (b)(1) ; 28 U.S.C. § 2647 . Vidrine v. United States , 846 F.”
Ruhmshottel v. United States (W.D. Wash. 2021). “§ 1346 (b); 28 U.S.C. § 2647 . Before bringing a lawsuit pursuant to the 9 FTCA, a plaintiff must first present his or her claim to the appropriate federal agency.”
Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 2 Ct. Int'l Trade 141 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1981). “1 In view of the fact that this action has been consolidated and all proposed applicants have answered one complaint (Zenith), and the further fact that Congress intended that this type of dumping review proceeding be handled expeditiously and with preference over other matters,…”
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.