Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · U.S. Code · Title 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE · CHAPTER 133— REVIEW—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS · § 2105

§ 2105. Scope of review; abatement

178 words·~1 min read·/usc/title-28/section-2105

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

There shall be no reversal in the Supreme Court or a court of appeals for error in ruling upon matters in abatement which do not involve jurisdiction.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 963.)
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 879 (R.S. § 1011; Feb. 18, 1875, ch. 80, § 1, 18 Stat. 318).
The revised language is substituted for the provisions of section 879 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., to avoid any construction that matters of fact are not reviewable in nonjury cases. Such section 879 related to review upon a writ of error which applied only to actions at law. (See Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limiting the review of questions of fact which renders unnecessary any statutory limitation.)
Rule 7(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolished all pleas, and the rules adopted the motion as a substitute therefor.
Words “matters in abatement” were, therefore, substituted for the abolished “plea in abatement” and “plea to the jurisdiction.”
Changes were made in phraseology.
Connections5 off-index
5 references not yet in our index
  • June 25, 1948, ch. 646
  • 62 Stat. 963
  • Feb. 18, 1875, ch. 80, § 1
  • 18 Stat. 318
  • section 879 of title 28
Citation graph
cites case law
§ 2105
Scope of review; abatement
ActJune 25, 1948, ch. 646
Stat.62 Stat. 963
ActFeb. 18, 1875, ch. 80, § 1
Stat.18 Stat. 318
Citesection 879 of title 28
Cites 5Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.