18 U.S.C. § 11
Section 2 of Public Law 90–331 (82 Stat. 170) [formerly set out as a note below] is repealed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1942–2023 · leading case: Philip Agee v. Edmund S. Muskie, Sec'y of State, 629 F.2d 80 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
Philip Agee v. Edmund S. Muskie, Sec'y of State, 629 F.2d 80 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “The Terrorists holding the American Embassy and hostages within Iran therefore constitute a “foreign government.”
People v. McCavitt, 2021 IL 125550 (Ill. 2021). “(quoting 18 U.S.C. § 11 (1926)). The government did not execute the warrant within 10 days of July 6, 1926.”
United States v. Barney A. Gertz, Owner of 3,827 Coins Being Likenesses of the 1847 'Hapa Haneri' Issued by the Hawaiian Gov't, 249 F.2d 662 (9th Cir. 1957). “The parties have devoted much attention to the definition of “foreign government,” set out in 18 U.S.C.A. § 11 . 1 This definition, which is concededly applicable to § 489, reads as follows: *666 “The term ‘foreign government’, as used in this title, includes any government,…”
United States v. Byrne, 422 F. Supp. 147 (E.D. Pa. 1976). “§ 951 13 and 18 U.S.C. § 11 14 from the rest of the Counts, and that the Court erred in declining to rule as a matter of law prior to trial on whether the IRA was “a Body of Insurgents” as charged in the indictment and provided in 18 U.”
Lamb v. State, 786 A.2d 783 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2001). “2d 1359 (1967), which considered a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 11 prohibiting resistance, opposition, or interference with federal agents while an agent is “engaging in .”
Dunne v. United States, 138 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1943). “Count 2 1 of the indictment charged conspiracy (under 18 U.S.C.A. § 11 , Act of June 28, 1940, § 3) to violate sections 9 and 10 of 18 U.”
United States v. Foster, 9 F.R.D. 367 (S.D.N.Y. 1949). “” 18 U.S.C.A. § 11 [Now §§ 2385, 2387]. The indictment reads as follows: .”
United States v. Stephen Mesarosh, Also Known as Steve Nelson, William Albertson, Benjamin Lowell Careathers, James Hulse Dolsen & Irving Weissman, 223 F.2d 449 (3rd Cir. 1955). “There is no reason to disturb the judgments of conviction which will be affirmed. . The indictment was brought under two statutes because of a revision in the Federal Criminal Code.”
United States v. Frankfeld, 101 F. Supp. 449 (D. Maryland 1952). “The six defendants in the above case are jointly indicted for conspiracy to violate the Smith Act, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 11 (1946 ed.) and 371 (1948 ed.”
Green v. Bd. of Elections, 380 F.2d 445 (2d Cir. 1967). “1137 (1951), of having conspired to organize the Communist Party as a group to teach and advocate the overthrow and destruction of the government by force and violence, and to advocate and teach the duty and necessity of overthrowing and destroying the government by such means,…”
United States ex rel. Dilling v. McDonnell, 130 F.2d 1012 (7th Cir. 1942). “On July 21, 1942, petitioner-appellant was indicted by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, charged with a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C.A. § 11 and 50 U.S.C.A. § 34 . Allegedly, she conspired to interfere with, impair, and influence the loyalty and to…”
United States v. McWilliams, 54 F. Supp. 791 (D.D.C. 1944). “§ 9 ), or to conspire to commit any of the said prohibited acts ( 18 U.S.C.A. § 11 ). Second, the indictment charges that continuously from and after June 28, 1940, and up to and including the date of the filing of this indictment, and in continuance of the aforesaid movement in…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 11(a)(1) — 1 case
Joshua Perez v. United States (C.D. Cal. 2020).
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.