Case citation in the context of "United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire"

Play Trivia Questions online!

or

Skip to study material about Case citation in the context of "United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire"

Ad spacer

⭐ Core Definition: Case citation

Case citation is a system used by legal professionals to identify past court case decisions, either in series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral style that identifies a decision regardless of where it is reported. Case citations are formatted differently in different jurisdictions, but generally contain the same key information.

A legal citation is a "reference to a legal precedent or authority, such as a case, statute, or treatise, that either substantiates or contradicts a given position." Where cases are published on paper, the citation usually contains the following information:

↓ Menu

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<

👉 Case citation in the context of United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire

The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire (in case citations, D.N.H.) is the federal district court whose jurisdiction comprises the state of New Hampshire. The Warren B. Rudman U.S. Courthouse for the New Hampshire district is located in Concord.

Appeals from the District of New Hampshire are taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (except for patent claims and claims against the U.S. government under the Tucker Act, which are appealed to the Federal Circuit).

↓ Explore More Topics
In this Dossier

Case citation in the context of Freedom of movement under United States law

Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Since the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), freedom of movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).

In its 2024 Freedom of the World report Freedom House gave the United States a 4 out of 4 rating on the right of freedom of movement noting that there are "no significant undue restrictions on freedom of movement within the United States, and residents are generally free to travel abroad without improper obstacles."

↑ Return to Menu

Case citation in the context of United States District Court for the Central District of California

The United States District Court for the Central District of California (in case citations, C.D. Cal.; commonly referred to as the CDCA or CACD) is a federal trial court that serves over 19 million people in Southern and Central California, making it the most populous federal judicial district. The district was created on September 18, 1966. Cases from the Central District are appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (except for patent claims and claims against the United States government under the Tucker Act, which are appealed to the Federal Circuit).

↑ Return to Menu

Case citation in the context of Corfield v. Coryell

Corfield v. Coryell (6 Fed. Cas. 546, no. 3,230 C.C.E.D.Pa. 1823) was a landmark decision decided by Justice Bushrod Washington, sitting as a judge for the U.S. Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In it, he upheld a New Jersey regulation forbidding non-residents from gathering oysters and clams against a challenge that New Jersey's law violated the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause and that the New Jersey law regulated interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause.

↑ Return to Menu

Case citation in the context of United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (in case citations, D.P.R.; Spanish: Tribunal del Distrito de Puerto Rico) is the federal district court whose jurisdiction comprises the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The court is based in San Juan. The main building is the Clemente Ruiz Nazario United States Courthouse located in the Hato Rey district of San Juan. The magistrate judges are located in the adjacent Federico Degetau Federal Building, and several senior district judges hold court at the Jose V. Toledo Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Old San Juan. The old courthouse also houses the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Most appeals from this court are heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which is headquartered in Boston but hears appeals at the Old San Juan courthouse for two sessions each year. Patent claims as well as claims against the U.S. government under the Tucker Act are appealed to the Federal Circuit.

The current United States attorney is W. Stephen Muldrow.

↑ Return to Menu

Case citation in the context of United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (in case citations, 1st Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:

The court is based at the John Joseph Moakley Federal Courthouse in Boston, Massachusetts. Most sittings are held in Boston, where the court usually sits for one week most months of the year; in one of July or August, it takes a summer break and does not sit. The First Circuit also sits for one week each March and November at the Jose V. Toledo Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Old San Juan, Puerto Rico, and occasionally sits at other locations within the circuit.

↑ Return to Menu

Case citation in the context of United States District Court for the District of Kansas

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas (in case citations, D. Kan.) is the federal district court whose jurisdiction is the state of Kansas. The Court operates out of the Robert J. Dole United States Courthouse in Kansas City, Kansas, the Frank Carlson Federal Building in Topeka, and the United States Courthouse in Wichita. The District of Kansas was created in 1861, replacing the territorial court that preceded it, and President Abraham Lincoln appointed Archibald Williams as the Court's first judge.

Appeals from the District of Kansas are made to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (except for patent claims and claims against the U.S. government under the Tucker Act, which are appealed to the Federal Circuit).

↑ Return to Menu

Case citation in the context of United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (in case citations, M.D. Pa.) is a district level federal court with jurisdiction over approximately one half of Pennsylvania. The court was created in 1901 by subdividing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The court is under the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (except for patent claims and claims against the U.S. government under the Tucker Act, which are appealed to the Federal Circuit).

Because Harrisburg, the state capital, is located within the district's jurisdiction, most federal suits against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are filed in the Middle District. Similarly, because York County Prison served as the largest Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) facility in the Northeast, the Middle District also adjudicated many immigration cases. The courts of appeal are now responsible for most judicial review of immigration decisions, bypassing the Middle District and other district courts.

↑ Return to Menu

Case citation in the context of United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

↑ Return to Menu