1 U.S.C. § 1
HAND ENROLLMENT AUTHORIZED FOR GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS BILLS.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 683
cases (137 in the last 5 years), 1932–2026 · leading case: Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council
Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council (1993)
“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 (2013)
“” 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 (2009)
“§ 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 (2019)
“” 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 (2011)
“" 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 (2013)
“” 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. (2002)
“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.”
California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Adv. Council v. James Rowland, Director, James H. Gomez, Sara Bruce, Leslie Banda (1991)
“The appellant argues that the question is conclusively resolved by reference to 1 U.S.C. § 1 , which provides in part: § 1.”
Gonzalez v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections (2004)
“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 Authority (2012)
“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. (2008)
“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 (1998)
“" 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
Anderson v. Town of Durham (2003)
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.