28 U.S.C. § 460

Application to other courts

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

(a) Sections 452 through 459 and section 462 of this chapter shall also apply to the United States Court of Federal Claims, to each court created by Act of Congress in a territory which is invested with any jurisdiction of a district court of the United States, and to the judges thereof.(b) The official duty station of each judge referred to in subsection (a) which is not otherwise established by law shall be that place where the court holds regular sessions at or near which the judge performs a substantial portion of his judicial work, which is nearest the place where he maintains his actual abode in which he customarily lives.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 908; Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, § 43(a), 65 Stat. 725; Pub. L. 85–508, § 12(e), July 7, 1958, 72 Stat. 348; Pub. L. 95–598, title II, § 217(a), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2661; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 115(b)(1), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 31; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, § 902(b)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516.)Historical and Revision Notes

This section was included to make clear that the provisions of this chapter are equally applicable in Alaska, the Canal Zone and the Virgin Islands in view of definitive section 451 of this title.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1992—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–572 substituted “United States Court of Federal Claims” for “United States Claims Court”.

1982—Pub. L. 97–164 substituted “Application to other courts” for “Application to Canal Zone, Guam and Virgin Islands” in section catchline, designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), substituted “Sections 452 through 459 and section 462 of this chapter shall also apply to the United States Claims Court, to each court created by Act of Congress in a territory which is invested with any jurisdiction of a district court of the United States, and to the judges thereof” for “Sections 452–459 of this chapter shall also apply to the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam and the District Court of the Virgin Islands and the judges thereof”, and added subsec. (b).

1978—Pub. L. 95–598 struck out “Alaska,” after “Application to” in section catchline.

1958—Pub. L. 85–508 struck out provisions which made sections 452 to 459 applicable to the District Court for the Territory of Alaska. See section 81A of this title which establishes a United States District Court for the State of Alaska.

1951—Act Oct. 31, 1951, inserted “, Guam” in section catchline, and inserted reference to the District Court of Guam in text.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–598 effective Nov. 6, 1978, see section 402(d) of Pub. L. 95–598, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 101 of Title 11, Bankruptcy.

Effective Date of 1958 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 85–508 effective Jan. 3, 1959, upon admission of Alaska into the Union pursuant to Proc. No. 3269, Jan. 3, 1959, 24 F.R. 81, 73 Stat. c16, as required by sections 1 and 8(c) of Pub. L. 85–508, see notes set out under section 81A of this title and preceding section 21 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases, 1928–2009 · leading case: Whitmore Ex Rel. Simmons v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Whitmore Ex Rel. Simmons v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990). · cites it 2× “§ 760; 28 U. S. C. § 460 (1940 ed.) (emphasis added).”

Martinez v. Colombian Emeralds, Inc., 51 V.I. 174 (2009). · cites it 2× “26 28 U.S.C. § 460 . I conclude that considering the above and given a forthright reading of Chapter 2 of Title 9, the only plausible conclusion is that only United States courts have jurisdiction to hear Convention cases.”

Gov't of Virgin Islands v. Gereau, 502 F.2d 914 (3rd Cir. 1974). “28 U.S.C. § 460 (1970). Because Judge Marsh was a material witness for the Government at the suppression hearing in this case, testifying to matters relevant to the admissibility of defendants’ statements (the treatment of defendants, their appearance and statements by them at…”

Hendricks v. Alcoa S.S. Co., 206 F. Supp. 693 (E.D. Pa. 1962). · cites it 4× “§ 451 , Congress thought it necessary to enact 28 U.S.C.A. § 460 , which specifically provides that certain sections of the Judicial Code concerning courts and judges (§§ 452-459 of 28 U.”

Ex Parte Rosier, 133 F.2d 316 (D.C. Cir. 1942). · cites it 2× “§ 760 (1875), 28 U.S.C.A. § 460 . [12] Rev.Stat. § 761 (1875), 28 U.”

Marshall v. Crotty, 185 F.2d 622 (1st Cir. 1950). “’ ( 28 U.S.C.A. § 460 .) It dearly follows, we think, that in any actual controversy wherein the court otherwise has jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties the court has power to determine the rights of the petitioner, although the case may not have developed to a…”

Collins v. Traeger, 27 F.2d 842 (9th Cir. 1928). “(28 USCA § 454), it is provided that ap: plication for a writ of habeas corpus shall be made “by complaint in writing, signed by the person for whose relief it is intended, * * * verified by the oath of the person making the application.”

Salmon Spawning & Recovery All. v. United States, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1277 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). · cites it 2× “Section 11 states that courts enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 460 shall also have jurisdiction over any actions arising under the ESA.”

James G. Nobles, Jr. Marialice P. Nobles v. Comm'r, Internal Revenue Serv., 105 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1997). “Congress has provided for mandatory recusal in other specialized courts, see 28 U.S.C. § 460 (Court of Federal Claims), and even for administrative agency adjudications.”

White Buffalo Constr., Inc. v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 145 (Fed. Cl. 1992). “§ 452 (made applicable to Claims Court by 28 U.S.C. § 460 ); RUSCC 77(a). Thus, the complaint hypothetically could have been filed on the actual date when the twelve-month period *146 expired.”

Jung Woon Kay v. Carr, 88 F.2d 297 (9th Cir. 1937). “All may be placed in two classes: (a) Failure to disregard the United States Officer’s return to the writ and discharge the petitioner because the return did not specifically deny the allegations of birth of petitioner in the United States and pertinent allegations therein. The…”

In Re Recusal Motion, 118 F. Supp. 2d 622 (D.V.I. 2000). “” See 28 U.S.C. § 460 . This statute mandates that a judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” or “where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

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.