U.S. Code » Title 48 » Chapter CHAPTER 17— NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— JUDICIAL MATTERS

48 U.S.C. § 1824

Relations between courts of United States and courts of Northern Mariana Islands; applicability of statutory provisions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 48 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The relations between the courts established by the Constitution or laws of the United States and the courts of the Northern Mariana Islands with respect to appeals, certiorari, removal of causes, the issuance of writs of habeas corpus, and other matters or proceedings shall be governed by the laws of the United States pertaining to the relations between the courts of the United States including the Supreme Court of the United States, and the courts of the several States in such matters and proceedings, except as otherwise provided in article IV of the covenant: Provided, That for the first fifteen years following the establishment of an appellate court of the Northern Mariana Islands the United States court of appeals for the judicial circuit which includes the Northern Mariana Islands shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the highest court of the Northern Mariana Islands from which a decision could be had in all cases involving the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or any authority exercised thereunder, unless those cases are reviewable in the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands pursuant to section 1823 of this title.(b) Those portions of title 28 which apply to Guam or the District Court of Guam shall be applicable to the Northern Mariana Islands or the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, respectively, except as otherwise provided in article IV of the covenant. The district court established by this subchapter shall be a district court as that term is used in section 3006A of title 18.(Pub. L. 95–157, § 4, Nov. 8, 1977, 91 Stat. 1266; Pub. L. 98–454, title IX, § 904, Oct. 5, 1984, 98 Stat. 1745.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The covenant, referred to in text, is the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, which is contained in section 1 of Pub. L. 94–241, set out as a note under section 1801 of this title.

Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1694c of this title.

Amendments

1984—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–454 inserted “including the Supreme Court of the United States,” after “courts of the United States” in first sentence.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–454 effective on ninetieth day following Oct. 5, 1984, see section 1005 of Pub. L. 98–454, set out as a note under section 1424 of this title.

Effective Date

For effective date of this section, see section 1825 of this title and Effective Date of Constitution note thereunder.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: United States v. Pelisamen, 641 F.3d 399 (9th Cir. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Pelisamen, 641 F.3d 399 (9th Cir. 2011). “§ 1291 (granting jurisdiction over *404 appeals from all final decisions of the District Court of Guam), and 48 U.S.C. § 1824 (applying “[t]hose portions of Title 28 which apply to .”
Commonwealth of the N. Mariana Islands,plaintiff-Appellee v. Joseph A. Bowie, 243 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2001). “Because we conclude that the Commonwealth’s unjustifiable refusal to act deprived Bowie of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, we reverse and remand for a new trial. JURISDICTION We have jurisdiction over final…”
Victor Babauta CASTRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOTEL NIKKO SAIPAN, INC., a C.N.M.I. Corp., Defendant-Appellee, 96 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “” 48 U.S.C. § 1824 (a); Santos, 76 F.3d at 300-01 .”
DIAMOND HOTEL CO., LTD., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elizabeth Blanco MATSUNAGA, Defendant-Appellant, 99 F.3d 296 (9th Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “Matsunaga claims that this court has jurisdiction over this appeal under 48 U.S.C. § 1824 (a) (1994) (formerly 48 U.”
Commonwealth of the N. Mariana Islands v. Joseph A. Bowie, 236 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2001). “Because we conclude that the Commonwealth’s unjustifiable refusal to act deprived Bowie of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, we reverse and remand for a new trial. JURISDICTION We have jurisdiction over final…”
Nw. Airlines, Inc., Plaintiff-Counterclaim v. Antonio S. Camacho, Dba Westpac Freight, Defendant-Third-Party v. Pacair Ltd., Third-Party, 296 F.3d 787 (3rd Cir. 2002). “§ 1291 and 48 U.S.C. § 1824 (b), and we affirm. I. BACKGROUND In 1992, Westpac agreed to sell international air cargo transportation on Northwest to third parties.”
Jose A. Sonoda, Paintiff-Appellee v. Antonio R. Cabrera Froilan C. Tenorio Commonwealth of the N. Mariana Islands, 189 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “In this instance, our jurisdiction is governed by 48 U.S.C. § 1824 (a) which declares, in pertinent part, that at this time we “have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the highest court of the Northern Mariana Islands from which a decision could be had in all…”
Mary Anne S. MILNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry L. HILLBLOM, Defendant, & San Roque Beach Dev. Co., Ltd., Defendant-Appellee, 165 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 1999). “” 48 U.S.C. § 1824 (a). “Our jurisdiction over appeals from judgments of the CNMI Supreme Court is similar to the U.”
Commonwealth of the N. Mariana Islands v. Vincente Flores Kaipat, 94 F.3d 574 (9th Cir. 1996). “As we have jurisdiction over Kaipat’s timely appeal, 48 U.S.C. § 1824 (a) and 1 CMC § 3103, we affirm.”
In Re: The Est. of Vicente Candelaria Dela Cruz, Deceased. Jose Roberto Dela Cruz v. Jesus Cruz, 279 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “See 48 U.S.C. § 1824 (a); Sonoda v. Cabrera, 189 F.”
Juv. Male v. The Commonwealth of the N. Mariana Islands, 255 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2001). “We have jurisdiction pursuant to 48 U.S.C. § 1824 (a). We affirm. I. Vagueness J.”
Ferreira v. Borja, 93 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 1996). “” 48 U.S.C. § 1824 (a) (formerly § 1694c). We lack jurisdiction to decide the first and second issues because the claims that the decision on remand violates the Covenant are so attenuated that they do not present a genuine federal issue.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
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.