42 U.S.C. § 1442
Repealed. Aug. 31, 1954, ch. 1158, § 7, 68 Stat. 1026
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: James R. O'COnner v. Commonwealth Edison Co. & London Nuclear Servs., Inc., & United States of Am., Intervenor-Appellee, 13 F.3d 1090 (7th Cir. 1994).
James R. O'COnner v. Commonwealth Edison Co. & London Nuclear Servs., Inc., & United States of Am., Intervenor-Appellee, 13 F.3d 1090 (7th Cir. 1994). “In Mesa , the Court reviewed whether allegation of a federal defense was a prerequisite to removal under the federal officer removal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1). The government urged that the statute permitted removal " 'whenever a federal official is prosecuted for the…”
Holton v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of South Carolina, 56 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (M.D. Ala. 1999). “The grounds upon which jurisdiction was asserted in the Notice of Removal, however, were 42 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1) and § 1446. The court clarifies that 42 U.”
Ferguson v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., Inc., 475 F. Supp. 2d 725 (N.D. Ohio 2007). “Viad removed the case to this court on the basis of “federal officer” removal under 42 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1). Viad contends that such removal is proper because when Gris-com-Russell supplied the evaporators it did so in accordance with specifications provided by the Navy, and it…”
W. Addition Cmty. Org. v. Romney, 320 F. Supp. 308 (N.D. Cal. 1969). “Against the possibility of some individual relocation hardship resulting from error of judgment on the part of the federal or local administrators, must be weighed the public interest which will be ultimately served by completion of the Western Addition A-2 Project — the kind of…”
Doe v. Crystal Clinic Orthopaedic Ctr., LLC (N.D. Ohio 2024). “Removal under 42 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1) (Federal Officer Removal) Because federal courts have limited jurisdiction, they “have a duty to consider their subject matter jurisdiction in regard to every case and may raise the issue sua sponte.”
Brown v. Condux Tesmec, Inc., 161 F. Supp. 3d 1101 (N.D. Ala. 2015). “It made its way to this court when Third-Party Defendant Christopher Shane Carman (“Carman”), who contends he is an employee of the Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”), removed it under the authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1442 , which permits “[t]he United States or any agency thereof…”
Riggs v. Country Manor La Mesa Healthcare Ctr. (S.D. Cal. 2021). “Accordingly, removal was not proper under 42 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1) 24 either. 25 IV.”
Iskowitz v. Northridge Subtenant, LLC (S.D. Cal. 2021). “9 Next, Plaintiffs argue Defendants are not “federal officers” under 42 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1), 10 so they are not entitled to federal officer removal.”
King v. Hill (S.D. Ill. 2022). “All individual federal officers will remain named in connection with Counts 1 and 2, and removal of these claims is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1). The Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, 28 U.”
Maglioli v. Andover Subacute Rehab. I (D.N.J. 2020). “Thus, removal is improper under 42 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1). III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, I find that this matter was not properly removed because the complaints fail to set forth a basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.”
Darrough v. SOC LLC (D. Nev. 2021). “38 at 33; 42 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1). SOC removed this action 23 based on diversity jurisdiction, the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), and the federal officer 1 removal statute.”
Jurist v. The Long Island Power Auth. (E.D.N.Y 2020). “[t]he United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that office) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office.”
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.