28 U.S.C. § 639

Definitions

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

As used in this chapter—(1) “Conference” shall mean the Judicial Conference of the United States;(2) “Council” shall mean the Judicial Council of the Circuit;(3) “Director” shall mean the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts;(4) “Full-time magistrate judge” shall mean a full-time United States magistrate judge;(5) “Part-time magistrate judge” shall mean a part-time United States magistrate judge; and(6) “United States magistrate judge” and “magistrate judge” shall mean both full-time and part-time United States magistrate judges.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 917; Pub. L. 90–578, title I, § 101, Oct. 17, 1968, 82 Stat. 1114; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 528a (July 10, 1946, ch. 548, 60 Stat. 525).

Provisions of section 528a of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., for furnishing seal is included in section 638 of this title.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1968—Pub. L. 90–578 substituted definition provisions for prior requirements obligating the Director to furnish docket books and forms to United States commissioners and, with approval of the chief judge of the district court, a copy of the United States Code, declaring such property to remain United States property, and calling for transmission of such property to successors in office or for its disposal as directed by the Director, now incorporated in section 638(a) and (b) of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

Words “magistrate judge” and “magistrate judges” substituted for “magistrate” and “magistrates”, respectively, wherever appearing in text pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of this title.

Effective Date of 1968 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 90–578 effective Oct. 17, 1968, except when a later effective date is applicable, which is the earlier of date when implementation of amendment by appointment of magistrates [now United States magistrate judges] and assumption of office takes place or third anniversary of enactment of Pub. L. 90–578 on Oct. 17, 1968, see section 403 of Pub. L. 90–578, set out as a note under section 631 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 32 cases, 1924–2009 · leading case: Arnstein v. Porter

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Arnstein v. Porter (1946) ca2 · cites it 2× “If a party is in the business of making motion pictures in California and is going about his normal business there when the trial occurs, it is quite clear that the exception limiting use of his deposition does not apply.”

Anglo California Nat. Bank of San Francisco v. Lazard (1939) ca9 · cites it 2× “The evidence was properly excluded. Appellants contend that the court below erred in reference to the taking of and the admission into evidence of the depositions of appellees David David-Weill, and Christian Lazard.”

Vincennes Steel Corporation v. Miller (1938) ca5 “28 U.S.C.A. § 639 et seq. In criminal cases, process for witnesses may run into any other district.”

M. Witmark & Sons v. Calloway (1927) tned “(28 USCA § 639 [Comp. St. § 1472]). There was never any formal exception filed to this deposition of Sadie Einstein, and for the reasons indicated thé deposition was clearly admissible.”

Dowling v. Jones (1933) ca2 “All the new evidence was taken upon deposition de bene esse at places remote from New York, and long before the trial.”

Dowling v. Isthmian S.S. Corporation (1950) ca3 “28 U.S.C.A. § 639 [see note preceding revised 28 U.”

H. Leslie Atlass v. Hon. Julius H. Miner and Hon. Edwin A. Robson, Judges of the United States District Court for the No (1959) ca7 ““A third explanation is that the revisers did not intend to authorize oral discovery proceedings and that the reference in Rule 32C to oral examinations relates to the kind of oral examination which is authorized in admiralty, namely, de bene esse depositions under 28 U.S.C.A. §…”

Guth v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. (1934) ca7 “Notwithstanding these decisions, it seems to us that where the parties have made a valid agreement, the performance of which calls for the signing of a document, be it contract, deed, affidavit, or other instrument, courts of equity may compel the performance of the agreement,…”

Nieman v. Plough Chemical Co. (1927) ca6 “7 The regularity of the taking and return of Lewin’s deposition is important; we doubt whether without it the record carries the Harper use back far enough to anticipate that of appellant.”

Mulligan v. United States (1949) nysd “A third explanation is that the revisers did not intend to authorize oral discovery proceedings and that the reference in Rule 32C to oral examinations relates to the kind of oral examination which is authorized in admiralty, namely, de bene esse depositions under 28 U.S.C.A. §…”

United States v. Hofmann (1938) nysd “Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 639 . 2. Deposition under dedimus potestatem and in perpetuam.”

United States v. 364.82 Acres of Land (1965) cand “Discovery of Expert Opinion Prior to the development of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery-in the federal system was governed by Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 639 et seq. (Committee Note, Note to subdivision (a) of' Rule 26; 4 Moore’s Federal Practice-1012).”

Show all 32 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.