18 U.S.C. § 1082
Gambling ships
1994—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $10,000”.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: United States v. Eliot S. Sash, 396 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2005).
United States v. Eliot S. Sash, 396 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2005). “Because 18 U.S.C. § 1082 (d) broadly defines ‘means of identification,’ the new or additional forms of identification can include items such as a driver’s license, a credit card, or a bank loan.”
United States v. One Big Six Wheel, 987 F. Supp. 169 (E.D.N.Y 1997). “Pursuant to the forfeiture provision of the Gambling Ship Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1082 (c), and 28 U.S.C. § 2461 (1994 & Supp.”
United States v. Sam C. Martino, Joseph C. Russello & Rolando Gonzalez Rodriguez, 681 F.2d 952 (5th Cir. 1982). “§ 924 (forfeiture of firearms used illegally); 18 U.S.C. § 1082 (forfeiture of property used in connection with illegal gambling); 18 U.”
United States v. Twelve Thousand, Three Hundred Ninety Dollars ($12,390.00), Willie J. Dorsey, Jr., Idell Dorsey, & Laverne Howard, 956 F.2d 801 (8th Cir. 1992). “§§ 65 , 117d, 128, 171 (1988) (guns or other property used unlawfully in national parks); 18 U.S.C. § 1082 (1988) (property used in connection with illegal gambling); 18 U.”
United States v. Thevis, 474 F. Supp. 134 (N.D. Ga. 1979). “§ 3612 (forfeiture of property used in connection with illegal bribes); 18 U.S.C. § 1082 (forfeiture of property used in connection with illegal gambling); 49 U.”
United States v. Elio Perez-Herrera, Luis Perez-Herrera & Domingo Perez-Barrio, 610 F.2d 289 (5th Cir. 1980). “§ 7 only defines the maritime and territorial jurisdiction, and it is only important when acts within the special jurisdiction violate substantive law, such as 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1082 and 1111. In any case, section 7 defines the maritime jurisdiction only for purposes of title 18.”
United States v. One Big Six Wheel, 166 F.3d 498 (2d Cir. 1999). “§ 1081 ; see 18 U.S.C. § 1082 . This in rein civil forfeiture action, brought by the United States against a shipboard gambling device, requires us to decide whether the recent expansion of “federal criminal jurisdiction” from three to twelve *499 nautical miles — by section…”
Hatfield v. Sessions, 322 F. Supp. 3d 885 (S.D. Ill. 2018). “§ 547 ); operating or holding any interest in a gambling establishment on a ship ( 18 U.S.C. § 1082 ); transporting lottery tickets across state lines when one state forbids lottery tickets ( 18 U.”
United States v. Grande, 620 F.2d 1026 (4th Cir. 1980). “§ 3612 ), property used in illegal gambling ( 18 U.S.C. § 1082 ), and property used in connection with narcotics violations ( 49 U.”
United States v. Ambrosio, 575 F. Supp. 546 (E.D.N.Y 1983). “Note, Rico Forfeitures and the Rights of Innocent Third Parties, 18 Calif.”
United States v. Zenon, 182 F. Supp. 2d 211 (D.P.R. 2002). “§ 7 “is only important when acts within the special jurisdiction violate substantive law, such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 1082 and 1111.” Id. at 290 n.”
Kalshiex LLC v. Mary Jo Flaherty (3rd Cir. 2026). “, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1082 (a), 1083(a) (Gambling Ships Act); 15 U.”
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.