FEDERAL · 28 U.S.C. · Chapter 5
Ohio
Current through Pub. L. 119-102
Ohio is divided into two judicial districts to be known as the Northern and Southern Districts of Ohio.
(a)The Northern District comprises two divisions.
(1)The Eastern Division comprises the counties of Ashland, Ashtabula, Carroll, Columbiana, Crawford, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Holmes, Lake, Lorain, Mahoning, Medina, Portage, Richland, Stark, Summit, Trumbull, Tuscarawas, and Wayne.
Court for the Eastern Division shall be held at Cleveland, Youngstown, and Akron.
(2)The Western Division comprises the counties of Allen, Auglaize, Defiance, Erie, Fulton, Hancock, Hardin, Henry, Huron, Lucas, Marion, Mercer, Ottawa, Paulding, Putnam, Sandusky, Seneca, Van Wert, Williams, Woods, and Wyandot.
Court for the Western Division shall be held at Lima and Toledo.
(b)The Southern District comprises two d
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
28 U.S.C. § 115 (Ohio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Marilyn A. Bobula v. United States Department of Justice
970 F.2d 854 (Federal Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Bink
74 F. Supp. 603 (D. Oregon, 1947)
Kaiser Industries Corp. v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp.
328 F. Supp. 365 (D. Delaware, 1971)
In Re Hubbard
23 B.R. 671 (S.D. Ohio, 1982)
Dichter v. Disco Corp.
606 F. Supp. 721 (S.D. Ohio, 1984)
Central National Bank v. Kwak
49 B.R. 337 (N.D. Ohio, 1985)
National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People-Special Contribution Fund v. Jones
732 F. Supp. 791 (N.D. Ohio, 1990)
United States v. Coffee
113 F. Supp. 2d 751 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2000)
Moysi v. TRUSTCORP. INC.
725 F. Supp. 336 (N.D. Ohio, 1989)
United States v. Bailey
193 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (S.D. Ohio, 2002)
Lingley v. Fastener House (In Re Acme-Dunham, Inc.)
45 B.R. 227 (D. Maine, 1984)
Coffey v. Managed Properties, Inc.
85 F.2d 88 (Second Circuit, 1936)
Townsend v. Fletcher
9 F.R.D. 711 (N.D. Ohio, 1949)
Cinema Associates, Ltd. v. City of Oakwood
417 F. Supp. 146 (S.D. Ohio, 1976)
Chavis v. Eousa
(District of Columbia, 2021)
Price v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections
(S.D. Ohio, 2019)
King v. Bobby
(N.D. Ohio, 2025)
Folley v. Gorman
(S.D. California, 2022)
Mikanadze v. Reed
(N.D. Ohio, 2022)
Fleurimond v. Fidelty Investments
(S.D. Ohio, 2025)
Source Credit
History
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 887; Feb. 10, 1954, ch. 6, §2(b)(9), 68 Stat. 11; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title I, §11021, Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1829.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §181 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §100, 36 Stat. 1121; Mar. 4, 1915, ch. 159, 38 Stat. 1187; Feb. 14, 1923, ch. 78, 42 Stat. 1246).
Other provisions of said section 181 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., are incorporated in section 1865 of this title.
Provisions relating to the place of institution or trial of prosecutions and civil actions and transfer thereof were omitted. Such provisions, as to civil cases, are covered by section 1391 et seq. of this title, and as to criminal cases, are rendered unnecessary because of inherent power of the court and Rules 18–20 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure relating to venue.
The provision respecting court accommodations at Lima was omitted as covered by section 142 of this title.
Changes were made in arrangement and phraseology.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2002—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 107–273, which directed amendment of par. (2) by inserting "St. Clairsville," after "Columbus,", was executed by making the insertion after "Columbus", to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
1954—Subsec. (a)(1). Act Feb. 10, 1954, provided for holding court at Akron.
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §181 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §100, 36 Stat. 1121; Mar. 4, 1915, ch. 159, 38 Stat. 1187; Feb. 14, 1923, ch. 78, 42 Stat. 1246).
Other provisions of said section 181 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., are incorporated in section 1865 of this title.
Provisions relating to the place of institution or trial of prosecutions and civil actions and transfer thereof were omitted. Such provisions, as to civil cases, are covered by section 1391 et seq. of this title, and as to criminal cases, are rendered unnecessary because of inherent power of the court and Rules 18–20 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure relating to venue.
The provision respecting court accommodations at Lima was omitted as covered by section 142 of this title.
Changes were made in arrangement and phraseology.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2002—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 107–273, which directed amendment of par. (2) by inserting "St. Clairsville," after "Columbus,", was executed by making the insertion after "Columbus", to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
1954—Subsec. (a)(1). Act Feb. 10, 1954, provided for holding court at Akron.