28 U.S.C. § 355

Action by Judicial Conference

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

(a)In General.—Upon referral or certification of any matter under section 354(b), the Judicial Conference, after consideration of the prior proceedings and such additional investigation as it considers appropriate, shall by majority vote take such action, as described in section 354(a)(1)(C) and (2), as it considers appropriate.(b)If Impeachment Warranted.—(1)In general.—If the Judicial Conference concurs in the determination of the judicial council, or makes its own determination, that consideration of impeachment may be warranted, it shall so certify and transmit the determination and the record of proceedings to the House of Representatives for whatever action the House of Representatives considers to be necessary. Upon receipt of the determination and record of proceedings in the House of Representatives, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make available to the public the determination and any reasons for the determination.(2)In case of felony conviction.—If a judge has been convicted of a felony under State or Federal law and has exhausted all means of obtaining direct review of the conviction, or the time for seeking further direct review of the conviction has passed and no such review has been sought, the Judicial Conference may, by majority vote and without referral or certification under section 354(b), transmit to the House of Representatives a determination that consideration of impeachment may be warranted, together with appropriate court records, for whatever action the House of Representatives considers to be necessary.(Added Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title I, § 11042(a), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1852.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 2003–2019 · leading case: Turner v. Pleasant

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Turner v. Pleasant (2011) ca5 “The Judicial Conference unanimously decided to transmit the report to the House of Representatives, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 355 (b)(1). On September 17, 2008, the House of Representatives authorized the House Judiciary Committee to conduct an investigation to determine whether…”

Janssen Pharmaceutica N v. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals., Inc. (2006) njd · cites it 3× “Mylan & DRL’s Abbreviated New Drug Applications Following Janssen’s success with Ris-perdal, generic manufacturers began filing Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDA”) with the FDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act, 28 U.S.C. § 355 (j)(l), seeking approval to sell generic…”

In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride & Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation (2014) paed “The FDA clearly stated in its ruling that delays still occur despite the mandate of 28 U.S.C. § 355 (q)(l)(A). As to Reckitt’s argument that any delays in approval of the ANDA were due to amendments made by the Generics themselves, this is a classic factual issue that is…”

Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc. (2003) wvnd “28 U.S.C. § 355 (j)(2). Because the pioneer drug is protected by a patent, the ANDA applicant must make one of the following certifications with respect to each patent at issue: (I) that such patent information has not been filed; (II) that such patent has expired, (III) the…”

Application of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, for an Order Authorizing the Release of Ce (2019) dcd “12 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 355 (b)); see also Hr’g Tr. at 83:21–84:23 (DOJ) (raising similar argument).”

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.