28 U.S.C. § 42
Allotment of Supreme Court justices to circuits
The Chief Justice of the United States and the associate justices of the Supreme Court shall from time to time be allotted as circuit justices among the circuits by order of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice may make such allotments in vacation.
A justice may be assigned to more than one circuit, and two or more justices may be assigned to the same circuit.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1930–2026 · leading case: D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance
D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance (1942)
“And see 28 U.S.C. § 42 , 43 Stat. 941 . Whether the rule of the Klaxon case applies where federal jurisdiction is not based on diversity of citizenship, we need not decide.”
United States v. Robert G. Eyer (1997)
“We might reject this appli *473 cation of “circuit” to “judge” on the ground that “circuit” as applied to “justice” refers to the allocation of the Supreme Court justices to the various circuits pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court as authorized in 28 U.S.C. § 42 . Under…”
Kaw Nation of Oklahoma v. United States (2012)
“The district court dismissed the action on jurisdictional grounds, citing 28 U.S.C. § 42 , which provided, ”[t]he district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any civil action by .”
Federal Deposit Ins. v. George-Howard (1946)
“The last of these statutes, enacted in 1925, 28 U.S. C.A. § 42, 43 Stat. 941 , limits the jurisdictional meaning of section 24(1) (a) of the Judicial Code generally in this class of cases to “any suit, action, or proceeding brought by or against a corporation incorporated by or…”
Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea (2014)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 42 (2012). As a Circuit Justice, the Justice is responsible for handling matters arising in cases from state and federal courts within his or her circuit.”
Federal Reserve Bank v. Omaha Nat. Bank (1930)
“941 , 28 USCA § 42); Federal Land Bank v. United States (C.”
Brusselback v. Chicago Joint Stock Land Bank (1936)
“But appellants contend that the 1925 amendment to the Judicial Code ( 28 U.S.C. § 42 [ 28 U.S.C.A. § 42 ]) removed such cases from the jurisdiction of the federal courts in providing that “No district court shall have jurisdiction of any action or suit by or against any…”
Campbell v. Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York (1933)
“It is provided in title 28, United States Code, § 42 (28 USCA § 42) that “no district court shall have jurisdiction of any action or suit by or against any corporation upon the ground that it was incorporated by or under an Act of Congress.”
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond v. Kalin (1935)
“941 , 28 USCA § 42, which provided that no District Court should have jurisdiction of any action or suit by or against any corporation upon the ground that it was incorporated by or under an act of Congress, except in cases where the government of the United States was the owner…”
Hood Ex Rel. North Carolina Bank & Trust Co. v. Bell (1936)
“The court below denied the motion for substitution and dismissed the action.”
King's Grant Golf Acquisition, LLC Ex Rel. T 2 Green, LLC v. Abercrombie (In Re T 2 Green, LLC) (2007)
“1936) (citing cases under former 28 U.S.C. § 42 ). Jurisdiction is also not lost *603 under 28 U.”
United States v. New York Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (1946)
“Here, in view of the facts previously referred to concerning the Brillo, McKinzie, Hunter Packing Company and Ralston-Purina incidents and of defendants’ practice in their retail stores within this district, all partaking of the inherent vice I find in defendants’ activities,…”
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.