28 U.S.C. § 754
Receivers of property in different districts
A receiver appointed in any civil action or proceeding involving property, real, personal or mixed, situated in different districts shall, upon giving bond as required by the court, be vested with complete jurisdiction and control of all such property with the right to take possession thereof.
He shall have capacity to sue in any district without ancillary appointment, and may be sued with respect thereto as provided in section 959 of this title.
Such receiver shall, within ten days after the entry of his order of appointment, file copies of the complaint and such order of appointment in the district court for each district in which property is located. The failure to file such copies in any district shall divest the receiver of jurisdiction and control over all such property in that district.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 158
cases (39 in the last 5 years), 1929–2026 · leading case: W. Henry Haile, Receiver-Appellant v. Henderson Nat'l Bank, Cleveland J. Bridges & Betty Bridges, 657 F.2d 816 (6th Cir. 1981).
W. Henry Haile, Receiver-Appellant v. Henderson Nat'l Bank, Cleveland J. Bridges & Betty Bridges, 657 F.2d 816 (6th Cir. 1981). “It was later chartered as a non-profit religious corporation under the laws of the State of Kentucky.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2007). “The Receiver insists that these cases justify the use of summary proceedings here as well, because obtaining jurisdiction over each sales agent would unreasonably deplete the assets of the receivership and diminish returns to the investors.”
United States v. Setser, 568 F.3d 482 (5th Cir. 2009). “See 28 U.S.C. § 754 . The government does not dispute that a bond was not timely obtained.”
Donell v. Keppers, 835 F. Supp. 2d 871 (S.D. Cal. 2011). “§ 1692 , and 28 U.S.C. § 754 . [Doc. No. 13.] On August 29, 2011, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs motion for default judgment and dismissed without prejudice the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
Long Beach Mortg. Co. v. Evans, 284 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. App. 2009). “Long Beach’s First and Third Arguments — Whether Evans And The California Federal Court Had Jurisdiction With regard to its first and third arguments, Long Beach contends that the Cali *? fornia federal court and Evans lacked in rem jurisdiction over the Marquette Property…”
Klein v. Cornelius, 786 F.3d 1310 (10th Cir. 2015). “28 U.S.C. § 754 . But the statutory scheme does not prevent a receiver from also pursuing state-law claims in federal court.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Bilzerian, 378 F.3d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 2004). “Finally, “to invoke § 1692, a receiver first must comply with 28 U.S.C. § 754 .” 74 F.3d at 290. Under that section, “a receiver appointed in one district may obtain jurisdiction over property located in another district by filing in the district court of that district, within…”
SEC. & Exch. Comm'n v. Stanford Int'l Bank, Ltd., 927 F.3d 830 (5th Cir. 2019). “" 28 U.S.C. § 754 . The Receiver is obliged to allocate receivership assets among the competing claimants according to their respective rights and, in this case, under the laws of Texas, where the Stanford Financial Group was headquartered.”
Select Creations, Inc. v. Paliafito Am., Inc., 852 F. Supp. 740 (E.D. Wis. 1994). “, and the Court’s inherent equitable powers to enforce its orders against nonparty aiders and abettors; and (5) the Federal Receivership Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 754 . 31 *765 6. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that Paliafito has: (1) met its burden with respect to…”
Terry v. Walker, 369 F. Supp. 2d 818 (W.D. Va. 2005). “The Receiver does not dispute this position, but rather asserts jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 754 and 1692. The defendants concede that personal jurisdiction may be authorized by federal statute,, even in the absence of minimum contacts, and that personal jurisdiction in this…”
Burton W. Wiand v. Roberta Schneiderman, 778 F.3d 917 (11th Cir. 2015). “” 28 U.S.C. § 754 . Wiand contends in his brief that Congress enacted this statute to “promote judicial efficiency by permitting courts to manage claims regarding receivership property in a single forum,” which he says is the federal district court in which the receivership is…”
Consol. Rail Corp. v. Fore River Ry. Co., 861 F.2d 322 (1st Cir. 1988). “3 A receiver was appointed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 754 (1982), to take control and management of Fore River’s property to ensure the preservation of the assets pending final disposition of this suit.”
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.