28 U.S.C. § 601
Creation; Director and Deputy Director
The Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall be maintained at the seat of government. It shall be supervised by a Director and a Deputy Director appointed and subject to removal by the Chief Justice of the United States, after consulting with the Judicial Conference. The Director and Deputy Director shall be deemed to be officers for purposes of title 5, United States Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1930–2025 · leading case: Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989).
Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989). “, 28 U. S. C. § 601 et seq. (Administrative Office of the United States Courts), just as there are agencies within the Legislative Branch (because they operate under the control of Congress) which are not themselves Senators or Representatives, see, e.”
Gleckman v. United States, 80 F.2d 394 (8th Cir. 1935). “50 for each day’s attendance under 28 U.S.C.A. § 601 ; (3) that the amount of mileage taxable on account of this witness should have been limited to the miles traveled by him within the district where the trial was held.”
Jose Gubiensio-Ortiz v. Al Kanahele, Warden, Metro. Corr. Ctr., San Diego, California, United States of Am. v. Raul Chavez-Sanchez, 857 F.2d 1245 (9th Cir. 1988). “, 28 U.S.C. § 601 (di *1278 rector and deputy director of Administrative Office is appointed and subject to removal by the Supreme Court); id.”
United States v. Andrew Crispo, 306 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2002). “The High Court cited 28 U.S.C. §§ 601 963 to illustrate which types of officers would qualify under this definition.”
Sindram v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 788 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “28 U.S.C. § 601 . The proper forum for Plaintiffs claims for breach of contract and retaliation under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, D.”
United States v. Arnold, 678 F. Supp. 1463 (S.D. Cal. 1988). “§ 331 , and the Administrative Office, 28 U.S.C. § 601 , which perform the necessary chore of administering the court system.”
Chandler v. Jud. Council of the Tenth Circuit, 398 U.S. 74 (1970). “1223 , as amended, 28 U. S. C. §§ 601 , 604. [4] 53 Stat. 1224 , as amended, 28 U.”
Martinez v. Winner, 548 F. Supp. 278 (D. Colo. 1982). “See 28 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq. If a chief judge violates an outstanding order on workload distribution, the appropriate remedy is a petition to the appropriate court of appeals for a writ of mandamus.”
Jephunneh Lawrence v. Elmer B. Staats, 640 F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “28 U.S.C. § 601 (1976). Prior to 1978, all other employees were appointed by the Director “subject to the civil service laws .”
Mundy v. Weinberger, 554 F. Supp. 811 (D.D.C. 1983). “See 28 U.S.C. §§ 601 , 604. See also D.C.Code § 11-1701-1703.”
The Maret, 145 F.2d 431 (3rd Cir. 1944). “The term United States District Court as used in Section 3(a) was undoubtedly employed in the sense of a United States court having admiralty jurisdiction.”
Seltzer v. Foley, 502 F. Supp. 600 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). “Foley is the Director is the “Administrative Office of the United States Courts”; it was so constituted and entitled by the Congress, 28 U.S.C. §§ 601 , 604. The interpreters who are to be certified by the Director are to be used “in courts of the United States”.”
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.