Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A civil judicial proceeding that traditional common-law rules require to be brought only in the judicial district where the property that forms the subject of the suit is located.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Homeowners Policy Venue Dispute
Alex Martin, a resident of the Eastern District of State P, sued two insurers in the Eastern District after a fire damaged his home there. Both insurers are incorporated in State P with principal offices in the Western District but maintain ongoing sales and claims offices in the Eastern District. The insurers moved to dismiss for improper venue, arguing that only the location of the property could support venue. The court denied the motion because each defendant resides in the Eastern District for venue purposes.
School Assignment Property Suit
Parents Involved in Community Schools sued the Seattle School District in federal court over student assignment policies affecting property values in specific neighborhoods. The district moved to dismiss, claiming the action could proceed only in the district where the affected schools and homes were located. The court rejected the motion after finding that modern venue rules permit suit where defendants reside even if the underlying dispute involves real property.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Dictionaries
Construction Contract Venue Challenge
J. A. Croson Co. filed suit against the City of Richmond in the district where the city maintained its principal offices after losing a construction bid. The city moved to transfer the case to the district containing the project site, invoking traditional local action principles. The court denied transfer because the defendants resided in the filing district and modern venue statutes do not limit the action solely to the property location.
Voting Rights Property Dispute
South Carolina brought an action in federal district court challenging federal voting examiners assigned to specific counties. The United States moved to dismiss on the ground that any suit involving local property interests must be filed where the affected land is situated. The court denied the motion, holding that the defendants resided in the chosen district under current venue rules.
University Admissions Venue Motion
Abigail Fisher sued the University of Texas at Austin in the district containing the university's main campus after her application was denied. The university moved to dismiss, asserting that the action was local and could be brought only where the campus property was located. The court denied the motion because the defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction in the filing district.
Zoning Ordinance Venue Suit
The Southern Burlington County NAACP sued the Township of Mount Laurel in the district where township offices were located after a zoning ordinance was enacted. The township moved to dismiss for improper venue, claiming the action had to be brought where the affected land parcels were situated. The court denied the motion because the defendants resided in the chosen district under applicable venue statutes.
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
What distinguishes a local action from a transitory action under traditional venue rules?+
A local action traditionally could be brought only where the property at issue was located. A transitory action could be brought wherever the defendant could be found or resided. Modern federal venue statutes largely eliminate the rigid distinction.
Supporting sources
Does the location of the property alone determine proper venue today?+
No. Current venue rules allow suit in any district where a defendant resides, even if the underlying dispute involves real property located elsewhere.
Supporting sources
Why did the court reject the local action argument in the insurers' motion?+
The court found that each corporate defendant resided in the Eastern District because it was subject to personal jurisdiction there through ongoing business operations, satisfying the venue statute regardless of where the damaged home was located.
Supporting sources
488 U.S. 469, 493 (1989)Constitutional Law
…inherently wrong, and destructive of democratic society." A. Bickel, The Morality of Consent 133 (1975). At least where state or local action is at issue, only a social emergency rising to the level of imminent danger to life and limb — for example, a prison race riot, requiring temporary segregation of inmates, cf. Lee v.…