28 U.S.C. § 83

Arkansas

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

Arkansas is divided into two judicial districts to be known as the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas.

Eastern District

(a) The Eastern District comprises three divisions.

(1) The Central Division comprises the counties of Cleburne, Cleveland, Conway, Dallas, Drew, Faulkner, Grant, Jefferson, Lincoln, Lonoke, Perry, Pope, Prairie, Pulaski, Saline, Stone, Van Buren, White, and Yell.

Court for the Central Division shall be held at Little Rock.

(2) The Delta Division comprises the counties of Arkansas, Chicot, Crittenden, Desha, Lee, Monroe, Phillips, and St. Francis.

Court for the Delta Division shall be held at Helena.

(3) The Northern Division comprises the counties of Clay, Craighead, Cross, Fulton, Greene, Independence, Izard, Jackson, Lawrence, Mississippi, Poinsett, Randolph, Sharp, and Woodruff.

Court for the Northern Division shall be held at Jonesboro.

Western District

(b) The Western District comprises six divisions.

(1) The Texarkana Division comprises the counties of Hempstead, Howard, Lafayette, Little River, Miller, Nevada, and Sevier.

Court for the Texarkana Division shall be held at Texarkana, and may be held anywhere within the Federal courthouse in Texarkana that is located astride the State line between Texas and Arkansas.

(2) The El Dorado Division comprises the counties of Ashley, Bradley, Calhoun, Columbia, Ouachita, and Union.

Court for the El Dorado Division shall be held at El Dorado.

(3) The Fort Smith Division comprises the counties of Crawford, Franklin, Johnson, Logan, Polk, Scott, and Sebastian.

Court for the Fort Smith Division shall be held at Fort Smith.

(4) The Harrison Division comprises the counties of Baxter, Boone, Carroll, Marion, Newton, and Searcy.

Court for the Harrison Division shall be held at Harrison.

(5) The Fayetteville Division comprises the counties of Benton, Madison, and Washington.

Court for the Fayetteville Division shall be held at Fayetteville.

(6) The Hot Springs Division comprises the counties of Clark, Garland, Hot Springs, Montgomery, and Pike.

Court for the Hot Springs Division shall be held at Hot Springs.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1928–2026 · leading case: B. J. McAdams, Inc. v. Boggs, 426 F. Supp. 1091 (E.D. Pa. 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

B. J. McAdams, Inc. v. Boggs, 426 F. Supp. 1091 (E.D. Pa. 1977). “See 28 U.S.C. § 83 (a). 19 . The investors’ activities took place in Haines City, Florida.”

Mrs. C. T. Starling, Individually & as Guardian of C. T. Starling v. Valmac Indus., Inc., 589 F.2d 382 (8th Cir. 1979). “28 U.S.C. § 83 . 2 . Mrs. Starling, the plaintiff herein, was appointed Guardian of her husband’s person and estate, and filed this suit as such.”

Maichok v. Bertha-Consumers Co., 25 F.2d 257 (6th Cir. 1928). “28, § 83 (28 USCA § 83). The judgments are reversed, and the eases remanded for further proceedings in accordance herewith.”

Willingham v. Creswell-Keith, Inc., 160 F. Supp. 741 (W.D. Ark. 1958). “In addition, however, the case is not removable by Creswell-Keith since said defendant is a citizen of this State. In this connection, 28 U.”

Phillips v. Mfrs. Trust Co., 101 F.2d 723 (9th Cir. 1939). “554 , 28 U.S.C.A. § 83 , indicates that opportunity should be given to obtain service.”

Harrison v. Union Pac. R. Co., 45 F. Supp. 2d 680 (E.D. Mo. 1999). “28 U.S.C. § 83 (5). From the pleadings and papers filed in this action, it is clear that the plaintiff resides in Arkansas, the collision occurred in the Eastern District of Arkansas, defendant Union Pacific is amenable to service and does business in that district, none of the…”

German v. Universal Oil Prods. Co., 6 F. Supp. 53 (W.D. Mo. 1934). “(28 USCA § 83), under which an alias summons might issue out of this court in each of these eases.”

Booth v. Merchants Nat. Bank of Brownsville, 100 F.2d 478 (5th Cir. 1938). “514 , wherein the court said (page 215): “The right of removal, if claimed, in the mode prescribed by the statute, depends upon the case disclosed by the pleadings as they stand when the petition for removal is filed. The State court ought not to disregard the petition, upon the…”

Samson v. Gen. Cas. & Ins., 104 F. Supp. 751 (N.D. Iowa 1952). “” Express statutory provision for the issuance of new process after removal was provided by the Act of April 16, 1920, c.”

Gresham v. Swift & Co., 29 F. Supp. 824 (W.D. La. 1939). · cites it 2× “, 28 U.S.C.A. § 83 , provides as follows: “§ 83.”

Norwood v. Yates (E.D. Ark. 2022). · cites it 2× “Norwood, 1:17-CR-068-HSM-CHS-1 [Doc. 27] (E.”

Norwood v. Yates (E.D. Tenn. 2022). · cites it 2× “Norwood, 1:17-CR-068-HSM-CHS-1 [Doc. 27] (E.”

Show all 25 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.