Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Snyder v. United States, 603 U.S. 1 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 18 U.S.C. § 666 prohibits bribes to state and local officials but does not make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities for their past acts.
The federal bribery and gratuity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, was enacted in 1962 as part of a comprehensive conflict-of-interest legislative reform. [27] The Supreme Court considers subsections (b) and (c) to be "two separate crimes—or two pairs of crimes." [28] In Dixson v.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down part of a federal anti-corruption law that makes it a crime for state and local officials to take gifts valued at more than $5,000 from a donor who had ...
Federal official bribery and gratuity and conspiracy to defraud the United States Abscam [40] Democrat: James Traficant: House of Representatives: Ohio 2002 Federal official bribery and gratuity, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and RICO [53] Democrat: J. Irving Whalley: House of Representatives: Pennsylvania 1973 Mail fraud [54] Republican
Attorney General Ken Paxton will not have to sit for a deposition in a longstanding lawsuit filed by four former senior aides who said he improperly fired them after they reported him to the FBI ...
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the honest services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346.The case involves former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling and the honest services fraud statute, which prohibits "a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services".
CHICAGO — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out a key part of the federal bribery statute often used in many Chicago-area corruption cases — including that of ex-Illinois House Speaker ...
Concerning headwright certificates issued to families residing in Texas on the date independence was declared. [1] Herbert v. Moore, Dallam 592 (1844). Determined that Indians were not sovereign nations, the rule of postliminy did not apply to property taken by Indians. Republic v. Inglish, Dallam 608 (1844). To obtain a land grant, it must be ...