42 U.S.C. § 7523

Actions to restrain violations

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

(a) Jurisdiction

The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to restrain violations of section 7522(a) of this title.

(b) Actions brought by or in name of United States; subpenas

Actions to restrain such violations shall be brought by and in the name of the United States. In any such action, subpenas for witnesses who are required to attend a district court in any district may run into any other district.

(July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title II, § 204, as added Pub. L. 89–272, title I, § 101(8), Oct. 20, 1965, 79 Stat. 994; amended Pub. L. 90–148, § 2, Nov. 21, 1967, 81 Stat. 500; Pub. L. 91–604, § 7(b), Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1694; Pub. L. 95–95, title II, § 218(b), Aug. 7, 1977, 91 Stat. 761.)Editorial NotesCodification

Section was formerly classified to section 1857f–3 of this title.

Amendments

1977—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–95 struck out “paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4)” after “restrain violations of”.

1970—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 91–604 inserted reference to par. (4) of section 7522(a) of this title.

1967—Pub. L. 90–148 reenacted section without change.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1977 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–95 effective Aug. 7, 1977, except as otherwise expressly provided, see section 406(d) of Pub. L. 95–95, set out as a note under section 7401 of this title.

Pending Actions and Proceedings

Suits, actions, and other proceedings lawfully commenced by or against the Administrator or any other officer or employee of the United States in his official capacity or in relation to the discharge of his official duties under act July 14, 1955, the Clean Air Act, as in effect immediately prior to the enactment of Pub. L. 95–95 [Aug. 7, 1977], not to abate by reason of the taking effect of Pub. L. 95–95, see section 406(a) of Pub. L. 95–95, set out as an Effective Date of 1977 amendment note under section 7401 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case: In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Mktg.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Mktg. (2018) cand “1) (May 23, 2017); 42 U.S.C. §§ 7523 -24 ; 40 C.F.R. § 86 et seq.”

United States v. Yair Holtzman (1985) ca9 “§ 1345 and 42 U.S.C. § 7523 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.”

Daimler Trucks North America LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency (2013) cadc “Daimler contends the controversy is not moot “because a decision voiding Navis-tar’s certificates will make it likely that Petitioners will receive redress for their past economic injuries” — either through an EPA enforcement action against Navistar under CAA sections 204 and…”

Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment v. TAP Worldwide (2022) utd · cites it 2× “55 Although TAP argues that the statute “expressly requires that all actions to enforce Section 7522 .”

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.