28 U.S.C. § 363
Court of Federal Claims, Court of International Trade, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
The United States Court of Federal Claims, the Court of International Trade, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall each prescribe rules, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, establishing procedures for the filing of complaints with respect to the conduct of any judge of such court and for the investigation and resolution of such complaints. In investigating and taking action with respect to any such complaint, each such court shall have the powers granted to a judicial council under this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46
cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc.
Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc. (2010)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 363 (b)(1). . Imposing contempt sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vii), particularly including a sentence of imprisonment, is an extreme sanction, but this is an extreme case.”
Kentucky Employees Retirement System v. Seven Counties Services, Inc. (In re Seven Counties Services, Inc.) (2014)
“§ 101 (41) and is therefore eligible for Chapter 11 relief; 3) KERS’s demand for a permanent injunction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 363 (d) and 28 U.S.C. § 959 requiring Seven Counties to continue post-petition “employer required contributions” under K.”
Wilson v. Walker (In re Walker) (2014)
“) (holding that the section of the Federal Magistrate Act ( 28 U.S.C. § 363 (c)) which allows magistrates to conduct civil trials and enter final judgment with the consent of all parties does not violated the Constitution).”
Hoeber v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 3 (1980)
“” Nevertheless, it is difficult to conceive of why it should not be treated the same as any other application for a preliminary injunction.”
Funk v. United States (2022)
“§ 2255 motion, which is a general objection that does not meet the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 363 (b)(1)(C) or Rule 72(b). Therefore, Mr.”
Funk v. United States (2022)
“§ 2255 motion, which is a general objection that does not meet the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 363 (b)(1)(C) or Rule 72(b). Therefore, Mr.”
GILBERT v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (DHHS) (2025)
“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 363 (b)(1)(B) and (C), the Court also reviews Mr.”
Newman v. Moore (2024)
(HC) Miles v. Sullivan (2019)
(HC) Eberly v. Neuschmid (2020)
(HC) Manley v. Davey (2020)
“11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 12 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 363 (b)(1). Within 14 days 13 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 14…”
(HC) Harris v. Neuschmid (2020)
“4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 5 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 363 (b)(1). Within 14 days 6 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 7 |…”
— 28 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1)(B) — 1 case
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.