40 U.S.C. § 3112
Federal jurisdiction
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
3112(a) | 40:255 (last par. 1st sentence words before semicolon). | R.S. § 355 (last par.); June 28, 1930, ch. 710, 46 Stat. 828; Feb. 1, 1940, ch. 18, 54 Stat. 19; Oct. 9, 1940, ch. 793, 54 Stat. 1083. |
3112(b) | 40:255 (last par. 1st sentence words after semicolon). | |
3112(c) | 40:255 (last par. last sentence). | |
Subsection (a) is substituted for 40:255 (last par. 1st sentence words before semicolon) to eliminate unnecessary words.
In subsection (b), the words “exclusive or partial” are omitted as unnecessary.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 66
cases (26 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Club One Casino, Inc. v. David Bernhardt, 959 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2020).
Club One Casino, Inc. v. David Bernhardt, 959 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2020). “The panel also held that 40 U.S.C. § 3112 did not apply where the jurisdiction at issue here – which was created by operation of law – was not granted by the State to the federal government, or taken by the federal government from the State.”
United States v. Gabrion, 517 F.3d 839 (6th Cir. 2008). “§ 255 (now codified as 40 U.S.C. § 3112 ), reads as follows: § 3112.”
State v. Smith, 522 S.W.3d 221 (Mo. 2017). “Smith has not rebutted the presumption by presenting evidence the federal government filed an acceptance of jurisdiction pursuant to 40 U.S.C. § 3112 (b). Because Smith has not presented facts suggesting the United States has accepted exclusive jurisdiction óf the federal…”
Brown v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 793 F. Supp. 2d 368 (D.D.C. 2011). “Plaintiffs reliance on 40 U.S.C. § 3112 is equally erroneous. Although it is not clear what plaintiff thinks 40 U.”
Par. of Plaquemines v. Total Petrochemical & Refining USA, Inc., 64 F. Supp. 3d 872 (E.D. La. 2014). “Section 3112, entitled Federal Jurisdiction, provides: (a) Exclusive jurisdiction not required. — It is not required that the Federal Government obtain exclusive jurisdiction in the United States over land or an interest in land it acquires.”
United States v. Bobby Kobito, 994 F.3d 696 (4th Cir. 2021). “But “[i]t is conclusively presumed that jurisdiction has not been accepted until the Government accepts jurisdiction,” 40 U.S.C. § 3112 (c), “by filing a notice of acceptance with the Governor of the State or in another manner prescribed by the laws of the State where the land…”
United States v. Fields, 516 F.3d 923 (10th Cir. 2008). “40 U.S.C. § 3112 (a). Seizing on this latter point, Fields draws the negative implication that, prior to 1940, the United States was unable to accept less than exclusive jurisdiction.”
United States v. Corey Davis, 726 F.3d 357 (2d Cir. 2013). “2d at 984 -85 (citing 40 U.S.C. § 3112 (formerly 40 U.S.C. § 255 )).”
United States v. Bohn, 622 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2010). “The record before us does not allow us to determine whether the state consented to *1134 federal jurisdiction and whether the federal government accepted jurisdiction pursuant to 40 U.S.C. § 3112 , as would be necessary to create exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction over the…”
Bd. of Commissioners of Se. Louisiana Flood Prot. Auth.-East v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 29 F. Supp. 3d 808 (E.D. La. 2014). “135 Although Defendants acknowledge that 40 U.S.C. § 3112 , as amended in 2002, mow provides that “i[t] is conclusively presumed that jurisdiction has not been accepted until the Government accepts jurisdiction over land,” 136 Defendants contend that if formal acceptance were…”
United States v. Earl Love, 20 F.4th 407 (8th Cir. 2021). “Love agrees that Missouri consented to federal jurisdiction over the Center.”
Prof'l Helicopter Pilots Ass'n v. Lear Siegler Servs., Inc., 326 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (M.D. Ala. 2004). “40 U.S.C. § 3112 (formerly cited as 40 U.”
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.