28 U.S.C. § 457
Records; obsolete papers
The records of district courts and of courts of appeals shall be kept at one or more of the places where court is held. Such places shall be designated by the respective courts except when otherwise directed by the judicial council of the circuit.
Papers of any court established by Act of Congress which have become obsolete and are no longer necessary or useful, may be disposed of with the approval of the court concerned in the manner provided by sections 366–380 of Title 44 and in accordance with the rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1937–2002 · leading case: United States v. Bolivar-Munoz
United States v. Bolivar-Munoz (2002)
“28 U.S.C. § 457 . Litigants can hardly be expected to know of documents that are not filed in the Clerk's office.”
United States v. Mitchell (1976)
“28 U.S.C. § 457 (1970). . Administrative Office of United States Courts, Manual for Clerks of United States District Courts § 201.”
Littlejohn v. BIC Corp. (1988)
“11(a); 28 U.S.C. § 457 (1982) (records of district court should be retained until obsolete or no longer necessary or useful).”
Holiday v. Johnston (1941)
“In the codification the language o^ the original statute was altered to indicate that the return might *351 be made to the court, justice, or judge, whereas, in the original statute, the provision is that the respondent “shall make return of said writ and bring the party before…”
Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit (1970)
“§ 372 (b); to direct where the records of the courts of appeals and district courts shall be kept, 28 U. S. C. § 457 ; to approve plans for furnishing representation for defendants under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.”
Ex Parte Rosier (1942)
“§ 757 (1875), 28 U.S.C.A. § 457 ; Rev.Stat. § 758 (1875), 28 U.”
In Re ARTHUR ANDERSEN & CO., Petitioner (1980)
“Were this, however, to be taken literally, it would cut against any claim that the proofs of claim ordered to be sent to New York were part of the records of a case in a Massachusetts district court. Or, if the statute be thought to require that such proof ought never have been…”
United States v. Mitchell (1975)
“2 In this particular instance this general right to have access and copy exhibits is especially reinforced by directives of the Judicial Conference of the United States issued under authority of 28 U.S.C. § 457 . The Clerks of Court for District Courts throughout the United…”
Horace Payne v. John W. Wingo, Warden (1971)
“That decision, however, was based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 457 , 458 and 461. 3 These pro *1194 visions have been replaced by 28 U.”
Clarence T. Gladden, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary v. James W. S. Gidley (1964)
“The provision of section 2243 that the return should certify “the true cause of the detention” survives from an earlier form of the statute which did not provide for the show cause procedure ( 28 U.S.C.A. § 457 (1940 ed.)). 3 This language is not to be read as justifying…”
Jung Woon Kay v. Carr (1937)
“” 28 U.S.C.A. § 457 . This particularly appears in the supplemental return (section 760, R.”
Bowen v. Johnston (1944)
“” 28 U.S.C.A. § 457 . “§ 758. The person making the return shall at the same time bring the body of the party before the judge who granted the writ.”
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.