42 U.S.C. § 1989

United States magistrate judges; appointment of persons to execute warrants

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

The district courts of the United States and the district courts of the Territories, from time to time, shall increase the number of United States magistrate judges, so as to afford a speedy and convenient means for the arrest and examination of persons charged with the crimes referred to in section 1987 of this title; and such magistrate judges are authorized and required to exercise all the powers and duties conferred on them herein with regard to such offenses in like manner as they are authorized by law to exercise with regard to other offenses against the laws of the United States. Said magistrate judges are empowered, within their respective counties, to appoint, in writing, under their hands, one or more suitable persons, from time to time, who shall execute all such warrants or other process as the magistrate judges may issue in the lawful performance of their duties, and the persons so appointed shall have authority to summon and call to their aid the bystanders or posse comitatus of the proper county, or such portion of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia, as may be necessary to the performance of the duty with which they are charged; and such warrants shall run and be executed anywhere in the State or Territory within which they are issued.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1966–2023 · leading case: City of Greenwood v. Peacock

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Greenwood v. Peacock (1966) scotus · cites it 2× “[13] Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act, now 42 U. S. C. § 1989 (1964 ed.), specifically authorized United States commissioners to appoint "one or more suitable persons" to execute warrants and other process issued by the commissioners.”

Bruce Baines v. City of Danville, Virginia, Hildreth G. McGhee v. City of Danville, Virginia (1966) ca4 · cites it 3× “Now 42 U.S.C.A. § 1989 . . Now 42 U.S.C.A. § 1989 .”

Van Sickle v. Boyes (1990) colo “Because of our disposition of this case, we do not reach Van Sickle’s claim for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1989 . 4 . With respect to the three violations at issue in this appeal, the Fire Department order stated: 1.”

Brown v. City of Meridian (1966) ca5 “swer, insofar as the offenses charged have any basis in fact, were acts in the constitutionally protected exercise of petitioners’ rights to be free of discrimination by reason of race under the United States Constitution, Amendment XIV and of petitioners’ rights of freedom of…”

Harold B. Mason v. Georgia Department of Labor (2017) ca11 “§ 1991 “concerns fees and persons who may be appointed to execute process under 42 U.S.C. § 1989 , which relates to arrest warrants and federal.”

People of The State of New York v. Trump (2023) nysd “42 USC § 1989 clearly states in pertinent part: The district courts of the United States and the district courts of the Territories, from time to time, shall increase the number of United States magistrate judges, so as to afford a speedy and convenient means for the arrest and…”

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.