28 U.S.C. § 476
Enhancement of judicial information dissemination
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: Deborah Audra Skousen v. Brighton High School, Paul Rambo, a Michigan State Trooper
Deborah Audra Skousen v. Brighton High School, Paul Rambo, a Michigan State Trooper (2002)
“…reluctance, we observe that at this point, the motion for summary judgment had been pending for just over six months. 28 U.S.C. § 476 (a)(1).”
Gayle v. Warden Monmouth County Correctional Institution (2016)
“, 28 U.S.C. § 476 (requiring semiannual public disclosure of the number of motions that have been pending on each district judge’s docket for more than six months).”
Arlene Otis v. City of Chicago (1994)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 476 (a)(3). Because a district court has only limited time to devote to each of its hundreds of eases, and because it generally is perceived (whether correctly or incorrectly) as something of a stigma to have cases included on such a published report, the…”
St. Marks Place Housing Co. v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development (2010)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 476 (a) (creating reporting requirements); Administrative Office of the U.”
Lawson v. Callahan (1997)
“Lawson also alleges that the district court did not report her case as a motion that has been pending for more than six months as required' by the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 476 . Under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 , Lawson asked the district court for declaratory…”
Footbridge Limited Trust v. Countrywide Financial Corp. (2011)
“Cf, 28 U.S.C. § 476 (a)(3) (requiring reports of cases that have not been terminated within three years after filing).”
Gullett v. Chater (1997)
“Gullett also filed a motion for declaratory judgment alleging that the court’s failure to identify his case as a motion that has been pending for more than six months violates the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 476 . These two matters were referred to the…”
Darrell Wilcox v. Georgetown University (2021)
“28 U.S.C. § 476 (a). In St. Marks, the record was “quite clear that the district court ‘closed’ the case for reporting purposes only.”
Shakhnes Ex Rel. Shakhnes v. Eggleston (2010)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 476 (a)(1) (requiring a semiannual report (colloquially known as the “six month list”) disclosing the motions pending for more than six months on each judicial officer’s docket).”
Brooks v. Halsted Communications, Ltd. (2009)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 476 . It is So Ordered. 1 . Defendants have also moved for summary judgment on issues not directly related to the relationship between the FLSA and the MCA.”
Matthews v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2017)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 476 (a)(1); Admin. Office of the U.”
Ramirez v. DeCoster (2001)
“As the date approached when I was required by statute to report publicly the pending motions as having been under advisement for more than six months, see 28 U.S.C. § 476 (Civil Justice Reform Act), I told the parties that the succession of consented-to delays would have to come…”
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.