28 U.S.C. § 517
Interests of United States in pending suits
The Solicitor General, or any officer of the Department of Justice, may be sent by the Attorney General to any State or district in the United States to attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a court of the United States, or in a court of a State, or to attend to any other interest of the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 292
cases (62 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: Abrams v. Lamone, 919 A.2d 1223 (Md. 2007).
Abrams v. Lamone, 919 A.2d 1223 (Md. 2007). “Perez bases his argument on 28 U.S.C. § 517 (2007) and Rule 701(1)(b) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (2007).”
Hall, Sheryl L. v. Clinton, Hillary R., 285 F.3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “As to Hall’s claims against Clinton, the district court held that the DOJ can represent Clinton pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517 because its decision to do so is either *77 unreviewable generally or is in this case supported by “a sufficient interest to pass muster under the flexible…”
Repub. of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004). “Ante, at 701-702; 28 U.S.C. § 517 . Such a statement may refer, not only to sovereign immunity, but also to other grounds for dismissal, such as the presence of superior alternative and exclusive remedies, see 22 U.”
Rosalie Simon v. Repub. of Hungary, 812 F.3d 127 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “In the district court, the government submitted a statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517 in which it urged dismissal of the suit against Austrian defendant RCH “on any valid legal ground.”
United States Ex Rel. Prather v. Brookdale Senior Living Cmtys., Inc., 892 F.3d 822 (6th Cir. 2018). “28 U.S.C. § 517 ; Fed. R. App. P. 29. The dissent's implied criticism of the United States' counsel taking only a limited position in this case is not well-founded.”
United States v. Erickson Meko Campbell, 26 F.4th 860 (11th Cir. 2022). “28 U.S.C. § 517 (noting that law- yers designated by the Attorney General shall “attend to the inter- ests of the United States”).”
M.R. v. Dreyfus, 697 F.3d 706 (9th Cir. 2011). “Further, we note that DOJ’s interpretation of the integration mandate in this case is consistent with its inter- pretation in another case before this court.”
Roeder v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 195 F. Supp. 2d 140 (D.D.C. 2002). “Plaintiffs argued that the government had no authority to intervene and that the only proper status for the government under 28 U.S.C. § 517 is as amicus curiae. On November 16, 2001, plaintiffs filed their oppositions to the United States’ motions.”
Georges v. United Nations, 834 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2016). “But on March 7, 2014, the executive branch of the United States government (the “Executive Branch”) submitted a statement of interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517 , in which it took the position that defendants are “immune from legal process and suit” pursuant to the UN Charter,…”
Action NC v. Strach, 216 F. Supp. 3d 597 (M.D.N.C. 2016). “, The United States submitted its Statement of Interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517 , which states that "[t]he Solicitor General, or any officer of the Department of Justice, may be sent by the Attorney General to any State *609 or district in the United States to attend to the…”
Alperin v. Vatican Bank, 410 F.3d 532 (9th Cir. 2005). “at 2255 (footnote omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 517 (“The Solicitor General, or any officer of the Department of Justice, may be sent by the Attorney General to any State or district in the United States to attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a…”
Gil v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 242 F. Supp. 3d 1315 (S.D. Fla. 2017). “) After the briefing was *1317 complete, the United States filed a Statement of Interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517 . (ECF No. 28.) Winn-Dixie subsequently moved to strike the Statement of Interest.”
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.