FEDERAL · 28 U.S.C. · Chapter 161
Executions in favor of United States
28 U.S.C. § 2413
Title28 — Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Chapter161 — UNITED STATES AS PARTY GENERALLY
This text of 28 U.S.C. § 2413 (Executions in favor of United States) 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. § 2413.
Text
A writ of execution on a judgment obtained for the use of the United States in any court thereof shall be issued from and made returnable to the court which rendered the judgment, but may be executed in any other State, in any Territory, or in the District of Columbia.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
John Thomas Stanford v. Everett Utley, D/B/A Utley Trucking Company and E. C. Hood
341 F.2d 265 (Eighth Circuit, 1965)
United States v. Bernard v. Baus
834 F.2d 1114 (First Circuit, 1987)
David Saxner and Alfred Cain, Jr., Cross-Appellants v. Charles Benson, Cross-Appellees
727 F.2d 669 (Seventh Circuit, 1984)
United States v. Timilty
148 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 1998)
United States ex rel. Goldman v. Meredith
596 F.2d 1353 (Eighth Circuit, 1979)
Juneau Spruce Corp. v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union
128 F. Supp. 697 (D. Hawaii, 1955)
Fox Painting Company and Fox Painting and Decorating, Inc., Cross-Respondents/appellants v. National Labor Relations Board, Cross-Applicant/appellee
16 F.3d 115 (Sixth Circuit, 1994)
Robinson v. First Wyoming Bank, NA
909 P.2d 689 (Montana Supreme Court, 1995)
Salazar v. District of Columbia
991 F. Supp. 2d 39 (District of Columbia, 2014)
United States v. Benjamin T. Thornton, Prince George's County, Maryland
672 F.2d 101 (D.C. Circuit, 1982)
United States v. Palmer
609 F. Supp. 544 (E.D. Tennessee, 1985)
Edward E. GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee
983 F.2d 954 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Juneau Spruce Corp. v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union
128 F. Supp. 715 (N.D. California, 1955)
American Freight System, Inc. v. Temperature Systems, Inc. (In Re American Freight System, Inc.)
173 B.R. 739 (D. Kansas, 1994)
Clark v. Wilbur
913 F. Supp. 463 (S.D. West Virginia, 1996)
United States v. Howard (Ted) Furkin
165 F.3d 33 (Seventh Circuit, 1998)
Schueler v. Rayjas Enterprises, Inc.
847 F. Supp. 1147 (S.D. New York, 1994)
United States v. Robert J. Febre
978 F.2d 1262 (Seventh Circuit, 1992)
Fox Painting Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
797 F. Supp. 577 (E.D. Kentucky, 1992)
United States v. Febre
764 F. Supp. 110 (N.D. Illinois, 1991)
Source Credit
History
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 974.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §839 (R.S. §986).
Words "or in the District of Columbia" were added on the authority of 14 Op. Atty. Gen. 384, declaring that, under this section, a writ of execution in favor of the United States, obtained from a Federal court in any State, could be executed in the District of Columbia. (See, also, section 1963 of this title.)
Changes in phraseology were made.
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §839 (R.S. §986).
Words "or in the District of Columbia" were added on the authority of 14 Op. Atty. Gen. 384, declaring that, under this section, a writ of execution in favor of the United States, obtained from a Federal court in any State, could be executed in the District of Columbia. (See, also, section 1963 of this title.)
Changes in phraseology were made.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
28 U.S.C. § 2413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/28/2413.