FEDERAL · 28 U.S.C. · Chapter 158

Jurisdiction of the proceeding

28 U.S.C. § 2349
Title28Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Chapter158 — ORDERS OF FEDERAL AGENCIES; REVIEW

This text of 28 U.S.C. § 2349 (Jurisdiction of the proceeding) 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. § 2349.

Text

(a)The court of appeals has jurisdiction of the proceeding on the filing and service of a petition to review. The court of appeals in which the record on review is filed, on the filing, has jurisdiction to vacate stay orders or interlocutory injunctions previously granted by any court, and has exclusive jurisdiction to make and enter, on the petition, evidence, and proceedings set forth in the record on review, a judgment determining the validity of, and enjoining, setting aside, or suspending, in whole or in part, the order of the agency.
(b)The filing of the petition to review does not of itself stay or suspend the operation of the order of the agency, but the court of appeals in its discretion may restrain or suspend, in whole or in part, the operation of the order pending the final h

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Trans Alaska Pipeline Rate Cases
436 U.S. 631 (Supreme Court, 1978)
323 case citations
Bocova v. Gonzales
412 F.3d 257 (First Circuit, 2005)
154 case citations
Arevalo v. Ashcroft
344 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2003)
135 case citations
Alex Nicolay Rife Yulia Rife Yola Rife v. John Ashcroft
374 F.3d 606 (Eighth Circuit, 2004)
121 case citations
Manuel Zazueta-Carrillo v. John D. Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General
322 F.3d 1166 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
119 case citations
Deu Thapa v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States
460 F.3d 323 (Second Circuit, 2006)
104 case citations
Ayuk Ako Obale v. Attorney General of the United States.
453 F.3d 151 (Third Circuit, 2006)
97 case citations
Susquehanna Valley Alliance v. Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor
619 F.2d 231 (Third Circuit, 1980)
81 case citations
PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton Harris Chiropractic, Inc.
588 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 2019)
63 case citations
Burlington Northern Inc. v. United States
459 U.S. 131 (Supreme Court, 1982)
57 case citations
Bin Weng v. U.S. Attorney General, Immigration & Naturalization Service
287 F.3d 1335 (Eleventh Circuit, 2002)
37 case citations
In Re Gte Service Corporation
762 F.2d 1024 (D.C. Circuit, 1985)
34 case citations
Sierra Vidal v. Gonzales
491 F.3d 250 (Fifth Circuit, 2007)
25 case citations
Lin Zhong v. United States Department of Justice, & Attorney General Gonzales
489 F.3d 126 (Second Circuit, 2007)
22 case citations
Thermal Ecology Must Be Preserved v. Atomic Energy Commission
433 F.2d 524 (D.C. Circuit, 1970)
21 case citations
Gage v. Commonwealth Edison Company
356 F. Supp. 80 (N.D. Illinois, 1972)
16 case citations
Dan Marius Andreiu v. Janet Reno, Attorney General
223 F.3d 1111 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
13 case citations

Source Credit

History

(Added Pub. L. 89–554, §4(e), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 624; amended Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, §402(29)(F), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3359.)

Editorial Notes

The headnotes of the subsections are omitted as unnecessary and to conform to the style of title 28.
In subsection (a), the words "has jurisdiction" and "has exclusive jurisdiction" are substituted for "shall have jurisdiction" and "shall have exclusive jurisdiction", respectively. The words "previously granted" are substituted for "theretofore granted" as the preferred expression.
In subsection (b), the words "does not" are substituted for "shall not". The words "of the United States" following "Attorney General" are omitted as unnecessary. The words "In a case in which" are substituted for "In cases where". The word "result" is substituted for "ensue". In the fourth sentence, the words "provided for above" following the last word "application" are omitted as unnecessary. In the last sentence, the word "applies" is substituted for "shall apply".

Editorial Notes

Amendments
1984—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–620 struck out provisions that the hearing on an application for an interlocutory injunction be given preference and expedited and heard at the earliest practicable date after the expiration of the notice of hearing on the application, and that on the final hearing of any proceeding to review any order under this chapter, the same requirements as to precedence and expedition was to apply.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 98–620 not applicable to cases pending on Nov. 8, 1984, see section 403 of Pub. L. 98–620 set out as an Effective Date note under section 1657 of this title.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 U.S.C. § 2349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/28/2349.