48 U.S.C. § 864
Appeals, certiorari, removal of causes, etc.; use of English language
The laws of the United States relating to appeals, certiorari, removal of causes, and other matters or proceedings as between the courts of the United States and the courts of the several States shall govern in such matters and proceedings as between the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and the courts of Puerto Rico.
All pleadings and proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico shall be conducted in the English language.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 149
cases (46 in the last 5 years), 1932–2026 · leading case: United States v. Rivera-Rosario, 300 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002).
United States v. Rivera-Rosario, 300 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002). “48 U.S.C. § 864 (“Jones Act” or “English language requirement”) (emphasis added); see also United States v.”
United States v. Mescual-Cruz, 387 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004). “Finally, Geraldo argues that the district court’s failure to have the interpreter translate his allocution statements into English violated the Jones Act, 48 U.S.C. § 864 , and the Court Reporter Act, 28 U.”
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano, 589 U.S. 57 (2020). “…as between the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and the courts of Puerto Rico." 48 U. S. C. § 864 .”
United States v. Millan-Isaac, 749 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2014). “” 48 U.S.C. § 864 (“Jones Act” or “English-language requirement”).”
Dávila v. Corporación De Puerto Rico Para La Difusión Pública, 498 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2007). “2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see 48 U.S.C. § 864 (requiring that “all pleadings and proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico .”
United States v. Roman-Huertas, 848 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2017). “The English Language Requirement and the Standard of Review The Jones Act requires that “[a]ll pleadings and proceedings in the *76 United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico .”
Gonzalez-De-Blasini v. Fam. Dep't, 377 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2004). “But my reservations as to certain of the quotations from, and glosses upon, two prior decisions dealing with the issue of Spanish language documents under 48 U.S.C. § 864 (2000) are so firm as to preclude an unqualified concurrence in the panel opinion.”
Pérez-Maspons v. Stewart Title Puerto Rico, Inc., 208 F. Supp. 3d 401 (D.P.R. 2016). “) Pursuant to 48 U.S.C. § 864 , "[a]ll pleadings and proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico shall be conducted in the English language.”
Colon-Fontanez v. Mun. of San Juan, 660 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2011). “5(g) (emphasis added); see also 48 U.S.C. § 864 (providing that “[a]ll pleadings and proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico shall be conducted in the English language”) (emphasis added); González-De-Blasini v.”
Puerto Ricans for Puerto Rico Party v. Dalmau, 544 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2008). “Under 48 U.S.C. § 864 , “[a]ll pleadings and proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico shall be conducted in the English language.”
United States v. Rivera-Carrasquillo, 933 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2019). “2017) (citing the Jones Act, 48 U.S.C. § 864 ; González-de-Blasini v. Family Dep't , 377 F.”
United States v. Chavez, 976 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2020). “The Jones Act, 48 U.S.C. § 864 , however, requires that federal trials there be conducted in English.”
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.