In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;
words importing the plural include the singular;
words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well;
words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present;
the words “insane” and “insane person” shall include every idiot, insane person, and person non compos mentis;
the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
“officer” includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office;
“signature” or “subscription” includes a mark when the person making the same intended it as such;
“oath” includes affirmation, and “sworn” includes affirmed;
“writing” includes printing and typewriting and reproductions of visual symbols by photographing, multigraphing, mimeographing, manifolding, or otherwise.
Notes of Decisions
Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194 (1993).
· cites it 33× “Here, we are asked to decide whether the term "person" as so used applies to the artificial entities listed in the definition of that term contained in 1 U. S. C. § 1 . We hold that it does not, so that only a natural person may qualify for treatment in forma pauperis under §…”
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 11× “” 1 U.S.C. § 1 . Thus, we could end the matter here since the plain language of the text encompasses “corporations,” including ones like Hobby Lobby and Mardel.”
United States v. Doe, 572 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 22× “§ 1153 as defined by 1 U.S.C. § 1"the word[] `person' ... include[s] corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.”
United States v. Ng Lap Seng, 934 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2019).
· cites it 12× “” 1 U.S.C. § 1 . Read together, these two definitional provisions signal that, unless the statutory context indicates otherwise, the word “organization,” whenever used in Title 18, applies broadly to all legal “persons,” whether large or small, domestic or international, public…”
Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
· cites it 6× “" 1 U.S.C. § 1 . As the Supreme Court has observed, that provision implies "the present tense generally does not include the past.”
Cyril Korte v. HHS, 735 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 6× “” 1 U.S.C. § 1 (emphasis added). By operation of this omnibus definition, the term “person” in RFRA includes corporations, unless the context indicates otherwise.”
Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438 (2002).
· cites it 4× “This account is certainly consistent with Congress' instructions in the Dictionary Act, 1 U. S. C. § 1 , that a reference to a corporation may embrace its successors and assigns even if not expressly mentioned.”
Gonzalez v. Sec'y for the Dep't of Corr., 366 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 7× “However, in the Dictionary Act, which is codified at 1 U.S.C. § 1 , Congress has made it clear that in the statutes it enacts, “unless the context indicates otherwise words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things.”
Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth., 566 U.S. 449 (2012).
· cites it 5× “The Dictionary Act defines “person” to include certain artificial entities “as well as individuals,” 1 U. S. C. §1 , thereby marking “individual” as distinct from artificial entities.”
Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians v. NGV Gaming, Ltd., 531 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 13× “That inquiry calls for a consideration of a number of factors, including the plain language of the statute, the role (if any) of 1 U.S.C. § 1 , relevant legislative history and, of course, the actual language of the agreement that once bound NGV and the Tribe.”
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998).
· cites it 6× “" 1 U. S. C. § 1 (emphasis added). And doubly worse, one of the definitional provisions of this very Act expressly distinguishes "individuals" from "persons.”
1 U.S.C. § 1(10): 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.