FEDERAL · 28 U.S.C. · Chapter 123
Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
28 U.S.C. § 1919
Title28 — Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Chapter123 — FEES AND COSTS
This text of 28 U.S.C. § 1919 (Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
28 U.S.C. § 1919.
Text
Whenever any action or suit is dismissed in any district court, the Court of International Trade, or the Court of Federal Claims for want of jurisdiction, such court may order the payment of just costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Willy v. Coastal Corp.
503 U.S. 131 (Supreme Court, 1992)
James Miles v. State of California
320 F.3d 986 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Angel Hernandez v. Conriv Realty Associates
116 F.3d 35 (Second Circuit, 1997)
Citizens for a Better Environment v. The Steel Company, Also Known as Chicago Steel and Pickling Company
230 F.3d 923 (Seventh Circuit, 2000)
Robert Stallworth v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority David Vegh and Ronald Tober
105 F.3d 252 (Sixth Circuit, 1997)
Nathaniel B. Wright, III v. Delbert C. Jackson
522 F.2d 955 (Fourth Circuit, 1975)
Moore v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc.
981 F.2d 443 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Lans v. Adduci Mastriani & Schaumberg L.L.P.
786 F. Supp. 2d 240 (District of Columbia, 2011)
Castillo Grand, LLC v. Sheraton Operating Corporation
719 F.3d 120 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Eugene R. Signorile, V, Quaker Oats Company
499 F.2d 142 (Seventh Circuit, 1974)
Ferragamo v. Chubb Life Insurance Co. of America
94 F.3d 26 (First Circuit, 1996)
Correspondent Services Corp. v. J.V.W. Investment Ltd.
524 F. Supp. 2d 412 (S.D. New York, 2007)
Montgomery & Larmoyeux Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Philip Morris, Inc.
19 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Florida, 1998)
Valley Disposal, Inc. v. Central Vermont Solid Waste Management District
71 F.3d 1053 (Second Circuit, 1995)
Price v. State of Hawaii
789 F. Supp. 330 (D. Hawaii, 1992)
Mary Thomas v. Early County, Ga
360 F. App'x 71 (Eleventh Circuit, 2010)
City of Riviera Beach v. That Certain Unnamed Gray, Two-Story Vessel Approximately Fifty-Seven Feet in Length
672 F. App'x 892 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Sun Oil Co.
426 F. Supp. 963 (W.D. Texas, 1977)
COOPER v. VAUGHT
(S.D. Indiana, 2019)
Rogers v. City of Seattle
(W.D. Washington, 2025)
Source Credit
History
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 955; Pub. L. 96–417, title V, §510, Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1743; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, §908(a), (b)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4519.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §80 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §37, 36 Stat. 1098).
Words "dismissed for want of jurisdiction" were substituted for "it shall appear to the satisfaction of the said district court, at any time after such suit has been brought or removed thereto, that such suit does not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of said district court". The substituted language is sufficient. (See reviser's note under section 1359 of this title.) The provisions of section 80 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to dismissal for improper or collusive joinder in removal proceedings, are incorporated in section 1359 of this title. Other provisions of section 80 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., appear in section 1447 of this title.
Changes were made in phraseology.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
1992—Pub. L. 102–572 substituted "Dismissal" for "District courts; dismissal" in section catchline and inserted reference to Court of Federal Claims in text.
1980—Pub. L. 96–417 included dismissals in Court of International Trade for want of jurisdiction.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1992 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.
Effective Date of 1980 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 96–417 applicable with respect to civil actions commenced on or after Nov. 1, 1980, see section 701(b)(1)(E) of Pub. L. 96–417, set out as a note under section 251 of this title.
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §80 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §37, 36 Stat. 1098).
Words "dismissed for want of jurisdiction" were substituted for "it shall appear to the satisfaction of the said district court, at any time after such suit has been brought or removed thereto, that such suit does not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of said district court". The substituted language is sufficient. (See reviser's note under section 1359 of this title.) The provisions of section 80 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to dismissal for improper or collusive joinder in removal proceedings, are incorporated in section 1359 of this title. Other provisions of section 80 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., appear in section 1447 of this title.
Changes were made in phraseology.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
1992—Pub. L. 102–572 substituted "Dismissal" for "District courts; dismissal" in section catchline and inserted reference to Court of Federal Claims in text.
1980—Pub. L. 96–417 included dismissals in Court of International Trade for want of jurisdiction.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1992 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.
Effective Date of 1980 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 96–417 applicable with respect to civil actions commenced on or after Nov. 1, 1980, see section 701(b)(1)(E) of Pub. L. 96–417, set out as a note under section 251 of this title.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
28 U.S.C. § 1919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/28/1919.