U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART III— COURT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES › Chapter CHAPTER 44— ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

28 U.S.C. § 654

Arbitration

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Referral of Actions to Arbitration.—Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary and except as provided in subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 652 and subsection (d) of this section, a district court may allow the referral to arbitration of any civil action (including any adversary proceeding in bankruptcy) pending before it when the parties consent, except that referral to arbitration may not be made where—(1) the action is based on an alleged violation of a right secured by the Constitution of the United States;(2) jurisdiction is based in whole or in part on section 1343 of this title; or(3) the relief sought consists of money damages in an amount greater than $150,000.(b)Safeguards in Consent Cases.—Until such time as rules are adopted under chapter 131 of this title relating to procedures described in this subsection, the district court shall, by local rule adopted under section 2071(a), establish procedures to ensure that any civil action in which arbitration by consent is allowed under subsection (a)—(1) consent to arbitration is freely and knowingly obtained; and(2) no party or attorney is prejudiced for refusing to participate in arbitration.(c)Presumptions.—For purposes of subsection (a)(3), a district court may presume damages are not in excess of $150,000 unless counsel certifies that damages exceed such amount.(d)Existing Programs.—Nothing in this chapter is deemed to affect any program in which arbitration is conducted pursuant to section 11 So in original. The word “section” probably should not appear. title IX of the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act (Public Law 100–702), as amended by section 1 of Public Law 105–53.(Added Pub. L. 100–702, title IX, § 901(a), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4660; amended Pub. L. 105–315, § 6, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2995.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Title IX of the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act (Public Law 100–702), as amended by section 1 of Public Law 105–53, referred to in subsec. (d), is title IX of Pub. L. 100–702, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4659, which enacted this chapter and provisions set out as notes under sections 651 and 652 of this title. Section 1 of Pub. L. 105–53, Oct. 6, 1997, 111 Stat. 1173, amended section 905 of title IX of Pub. L. 100–702, which is set out as a note under section 651 of this title.

Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–315 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to arbitration for provisions relating to arbitration award and judgment.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1935–2023 · leading case: Kemart Corporation, a Corporation v. Printing Arts Research Laboratories, Inc., a Corporation
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kemart Corporation, a Corporation v. Printing Arts Research Laboratories, Inc., a Corporation (1956) ca9 · cites it 3× “§ 876, 28 U.S.C.A. § 654 , provides that subpoenas for witnesses will not run a greater distance than 100 miles, and it has been practically universally held that mileage to witnesses is taxable to the full extent of the distance they can be legally reached by subpoena, but not…”
National Labor Relations Board v. Baldwin Locomotive Works (1942) ca3 · cites it 2× “41; Department of Interior, Bituminous Coal Division, No.”
United States v. Perlstein (1941) ca3 · cites it 2× “, 28 U.S.C.A. § 654 . It is significant that neither Paul nor his co-defendants mentioned these witnesses in their testimony, nor was any effort made upon cross-examination to elicit any information about them.”
Gleckman v. United States (1935) ca8 “By the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 654 subpoenas for witnesses in criminal cases may “run into any other district” and there is no limitation of the expense for traveling to the travel within the district, either express or implied.”
Dudley v. Siler Excavation Servs., L.L.C. (2023) ohioctapp “, 28 U.S.C. § 654 , 28 U.S.C. § 660 (c), 29 CFR 1903.”
Morton v. United States (1945) cadc “VI; 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 654 , 656. 14 Crumpton v. United States, 138 U.”
Inland Steel Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (1940) ca7 “Sections 876, 28 U.S.C.A. § 654 , and § 878, 28 U.S. C.”
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Minas De Artemisa, S. A. (1945) ca9 “It appears to be designed to override territorial restrictions which would obtain had Congress prescribed for the Commission the limitations contained in 28 U.S.C.A. § 654 , relating to court subpenas.”
Turner v. Young (2002) ksd “§'652, as amended October 30, 1998, litigants in all civil cases are required to consider the use of an alternative dispute resolution process, including, but not limited to, mediation, settlement conferences, early neutral evaluation, mini trial, and arbitration as authorized…”
Vincennes Steel Corporation v. Miller (1938) ca5 “848 , 28 U.S.C.A. § 654 . These statutes do not purport to affect the liability of the parties for costs, but, by their operation, they fix precisely the fees which are necessary in ordinary cases.”
Kenyon v. Automatic Instrument Co. (1950) miwd “paragraph (1), are to the effect that this paragraph continues the substance of 28 U.S.C.A. § 654 . Section 654 was repealed in 1948 as having been superseded by rule 45(e) (1).”
Mercado v. United States (1950) ca2 “§ 876, the former 28 U.S.C.A. § 654 , from Act of March 2, 1793, c.”
Show all 23 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.