FEDERAL · 28 U.S.C. · Chapter 133
Scope of review; abatement
28 U.S.C. § 2105
Title28 — Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Chapter133 — REVIEW—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
This text of 28 U.S.C. § 2105 (Scope of review; abatement) 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. § 2105.
Text
There shall be no reversal in the Supreme Court or a court of appeals for error in ruling upon matters in abatement which do not involve jurisdiction.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.
518 U.S. 415 (Supreme Court, 1996)
Frank J. Nascone, and Spudnuts of Pennsylvania, Inc., a Corporation v. Spudnuts, Inc., a Corporation, and Frank Boyd
735 F.2d 763 (Third Circuit, 1984)
Snyder v. Buck
340 U.S. 15 (Supreme Court, 1950)
Aetna State Bank v. Alan Milton Altheimer, Administrator With the Will Annexed of the Estate of Milton L. Altheimer, Deceased
430 F.2d 750 (Seventh Circuit, 1970)
Bowles v. Wilke
175 F.2d 35 (Seventh Circuit, 1949)
United States v. Alcon Laboratories, Etc.
636 F.2d 876 (First Circuit, 1981)
Sunray Oil Corporation v. Allbritton
187 F.2d 475 (Fifth Circuit, 1951)
Jean Hayes and Citizens National Bank v. Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Indemnity Company
722 F.2d 1332 (Seventh Circuit, 1983)
Vincent J. Dellaripa, Administrator of the Estate of Alfred Dellaripa v. The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company
257 F.2d 733 (Second Circuit, 1958)
Sperling v. Hoffman-La Roche Inc.
862 F.2d 439 (Third Circuit, 1988)
Ruth v. Sorensen
104 So. 2d 10 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1958)
United States v. Allied Oil Corp.
341 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1951)
Southeastern Federal Power Customers, Inc. v. Geren
514 F.3d 1316 (D.C. Circuit, 2008)
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,246 Richard J. McGough v. First Arlington National Bank, a National Banking Association
519 F.2d 552 (First Circuit, 1975)
Hyman v. City of Gastonia
466 F.3d 284 (Fourth Circuit, 2006)
PJC Bros. v. S&S Claims Service, Inc.
267 F.R.D. 199 (S.D. Texas, 2010)
Sherman H. Skolnick v. Commissioner James Benton Parsons, the President's Commission of Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice
397 F.2d 523 (Seventh Circuit, 1968)
Chasser v. Achille Lauro Lines
844 F.2d 50 (Second Circuit, 1988)
Farasat v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
913 F. Supp. 2d 197 (D. Maryland, 2012)
Russell Box Co. v. Grant Paper Box Co.
179 F.2d 785 (First Circuit, 1950)
Source Credit
History
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 963.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §879 (R.S. §1011; Feb. 18, 1875, ch. 80, §1, 18 Stat. 318).
The revised language is substituted for the provisions of section 879 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., to avoid any construction that matters of fact are not reviewable in nonjury cases. Such section 879 related to review upon a writ of error which applied only to actions at law. (See Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limiting the review of questions of fact which renders unnecessary any statutory limitation.)
Rule 7(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolished all pleas, and the rules adopted the motion as a substitute therefor.
Words "matters in abatement" were, therefore, substituted for the abolished "plea in abatement" and "plea to the jurisdiction."
Changes were made in phraseology.
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §879 (R.S. §1011; Feb. 18, 1875, ch. 80, §1, 18 Stat. 318).
The revised language is substituted for the provisions of section 879 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., to avoid any construction that matters of fact are not reviewable in nonjury cases. Such section 879 related to review upon a writ of error which applied only to actions at law. (See Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limiting the review of questions of fact which renders unnecessary any statutory limitation.)
Rule 7(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolished all pleas, and the rules adopted the motion as a substitute therefor.
Words "matters in abatement" were, therefore, substituted for the abolished "plea in abatement" and "plea to the jurisdiction."
Changes were made in phraseology.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
28 U.S.C. § 2105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/28/2105.