42 U.S.C. § 660
Civil action to enforce child support obligations; jurisdiction of district courts
The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction, without regard to any amount in controversy, to hear and determine any civil action certified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 652(a)(8) of this title. A civil action under this section may be brought in any judicial district in which the claim arose, the plaintiff resides, or the defendant resides.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Wilhelm v. United States Dep't of the Air Force, Acct. & Fin. Ctr., 418 F. Supp. 162 (S.D. Tex. 1976).
Wilhelm v. United States Dep't of the Air Force, Acct. & Fin. Ctr., 418 F. Supp. 162 (S.D. Tex. 1976). “By way of contrast, 42 U.S.C. § 660 creates a basis for federal jurisdiction by providing that “[t]he district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction .”
Ralph T. Overman v. United States of Am., Fred Hornkohl & Frances Overman, 563 F.2d 1287 (8th Cir. 1977). “] Congressman Ullman’s comment about certification is a reference to 42 U.S.C. § 660 (Supp. 1975). That provision provides federal jurisdiction for civil actions arising under 42 U.”
Maury Hexamer v. Patrick Foreness, 981 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1993). “§ 409 , and 42 U.S.C. § 660 . First, we look to see whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 39 U.”
Ann C. Schweiss v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 922 F.2d 473 (8th Cir. 1990). “Further, Chrysler does not point us to any suggestion in the legislative history of 42 U.S.C. § 660 (c) that Congress intended to preempt state law actions that allow such relief.”
Bolling v. Howland, 398 F. Supp. 1313 (M.D. Tenn. 1975). “Since the certification requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 660 has not been met in either of these cases, the court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction and the above styled cases must be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.”
Morrison v. Morrison, 408 F. Supp. 315 (N.D. Tex. 1976). “” 42 U.S.C. § 660 (1975). As can be seen, section 659 does not provide an independent jurisdictional base upon which an action can be maintained in federal district court.”
Becker Cnty. Welfare Dep't v. Bellcourt, 453 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). “Moreover, contrary to Bellcourt’s assertion, neither 42 U.S.C. § 660 nor the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.”
Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Merry, 592 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. 1979). “SSA § 460, 42 U.S.C. § 660 ; see SSA § 452(b), 42 U.”
Kelley v. Kelley, 425 F. Supp. 181 (W.D. La. 1977). “§ 659 does not grant jurisdiction to Federal Courts, it merely waives the United States’ immunity in two specific situations; (3) 42 U.S.C. § 660 1 refers to 42 U.S.C. § 652 (a)(8), 2 and when the statute is read as a whole, it grants a plaintiff a cause of action in Federal…”
Golightly v. Golightly, 410 F. Supp. 861 (D. Neb. 1976). “42 U.S.C. § 660 provides for jurisdiction in the Federal Courts when the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare certifies the civil action under Section 652(a)(8).”
Cecelia C. Stephens v. United States Dep't of the Navy, 589 F.2d 783 (4th Cir. 1979). “See 42 U.S.C. § 660 (part of the same statutory scheme specifically providing for federal jurisdiction in other circumstances).”
In Re Marriage of Purnel, 52 Cal. App. 4th 527 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). “Moreover, contrary to Bellcourt’s assertion, neither 42 U.S.C. § 660 nor the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 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.