Also known as: United States District Court · U.S. District Court · U.S. District Courts · federal district court · federal district courts · USDC · district court · district courts
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The trial-level courts of the federal judicial system that exercise original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law and diversity cases exceeding the statutory amount in controversy.
Uliana Ustinova sued Upstream Petroleum in state court for breach of contract. Upstream Petroleum filed a notice of removal in the United States District Court for the district where the state action was pending, attaching all served pleadings and a short statement of federal jurisdiction grounds. The district court accepted the filing and the case proceeded in federal court.
Urban Utley offered an expert opinion linking chemical exposure to his illness in a products liability suit against Unity Capital. The United States District Court excluded the testimony after finding too great an analytical gap between the data and the expert's conclusions. The court of appeals reviewed that exclusion for abuse of discretion.
Ursula Ung offered hearsay statements during a civil trial in the United States District Court. The court applied the Federal Rules of Evidence to determine admissibility because those rules govern proceedings before United States district courts. The ruling shaped which evidence reached the jury.
Uma Underwood sued Ultra Precision in a United States District Court that lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The court transferred the action under section 1406(a) to a district where the action could have been brought rather than dismissing it. The transferee court then proceeded with the case.
Usha Upton faced a felon-in-possession charge in United States District Court. She offered to stipulate to her prior conviction status, but the government sought to introduce the full record. The court excluded the detailed evidence because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Una Unger and her partner filed suit in a United States District Court challenging state marriage restrictions under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court ruled in their favor. The decision then proceeded through the appellate process to the Supreme Court.
The petitioners were fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners were deceased. They lived in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. Those states defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman under their constitutions and statutes. The petitioners filed suits in federal district courts in their home states. They sought marriage licenses or recognition of marriages lawfully performed elsewhere. James Obergefell and John Arthur traveled from Ohio to Maryland to marry aboard a medical transport plane because Arthur suffered from ALS; Obergefell later sought to be listed as surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, Michigan nurses, adopted three children but could not both serve as legal parents under state adoption rules. Army Reserve Sergeant Ijpe DeKoe and Thomas Kostura married in New York before DeKoe's deployment to Afghanistan and later settled in Tennessee. Each district court ruled in the petitioners' favor. The respondents appealed. The Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed the district court judgments. The petitioners sought certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted. Same-sex couples had begun establishing families after substantial cultural and political developments in the late twentieth century. Earlier litigation had addressed the legal status of gays and lesbians, including challenges that reached the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas.
View caseA defendant must file a notice of removal in the district court for the district and division where the state action is pending. The notice must be signed under Rule 11, contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, and include copies of all process, pleadings, and orders served on the defendant.
Supporting sources
District courts assess both the reliability and relevance of expert testimony. They may exclude an opinion when there is too great an analytical gap between the data and the proffered conclusion or when the expert's methodology lacks sufficient factual support.
Supporting sources
Yes. A district court without personal jurisdiction may still transfer the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to a district where the action could have been brought if transfer serves the interest of justice.
Supporting sources
…were unconstitutional on their face, and an injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing the statutes. A three-judge District Court for the Northern District of Texas, to which the action was referred, held that the Does and Hallford had no standing to sue, but that Roe did have standing, and that the Texas abortion…