1 U.S.C. § 105
Title of appropriation Acts
The style and title of all Acts making appropriations for the support of Government shall be as follows: “An Act making appropriations (here insert the object) for the year ending September 30 (here insert the calendar year).”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2021 · leading case: Picard v. J. Ezra Merkin, Gabriel Capital, L.P. (In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC), 515 B.R. 117 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014).
Picard v. J. Ezra Merkin, Gabriel Capital, L.P. (In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC), 515 B.R. 117 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014). “13 402-08 Defendant Funds Equitable subordination of any and all claims of Defendant Funds against BLMIS under i 1 U S.C. §§ 105(a), 510(c), The defendants have moved to dismiss the TAC on several grounds, raising two threshold issues.”
In re Patriot Coal Corp., 493 B.R. 65 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 2013). “See Final Order (I) Authorizing Debtors (A) To Obtain Post-Petition Financing Pursuant to J1 U.S.C. §§ 105, 361, 362, 364(c)(1), 364(c)(2), 364(c)(3), 364(d)(1) and 364(e), and (B) To Utilize Cash Collateral Pursuant to 11 U.”
Indiana Mun. Power Agency v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021). “The plaintiffs premise their argument on 1 U.S.C. § 105 . Because a related provision in Title 2 of the U.”
Indiana Mun. Power Agency v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021). “’” 1 U.S.C. § 105 . The term “appropriation Act” from the definition of “direct spending” in 2 U.”
State of Washington v. Trump (W.D. Wash. 2020). “§ 622 (5); 1 U.S.C. § 105 . Section 2808 5 does not begin with this language; rather, it is a provision of the Military Construction 6 Codification Act, Pub.”
Releford v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 874 F. Supp. 1388 (M.D. Ga. 1995). “, is not an appropriations act, see 1 U.S.C. § 105 , the court believes that section 923 of that act evidences the clear intent of Congress that section 957 of -the Cranston-Gon-zalez National Affordable Housing Act is to be implemented immediately.”
— 1 U.S.C. § 105(a) — 1 case
Picard v. J. Ezra Merkin, Gabriel Capital, L.P. (In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC), 515 B.R. 117 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014). “13 402-08 Defendant Funds Equitable subordination of any and all claims of Defendant Funds against BLMIS under i 1 U S.C. §§ 105(a), 510(c), The defendants have moved to dismiss the TAC on several grounds, raising two threshold issues.”
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.