18 U.S.C. § 1305

Fishing contests

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

The provisions of this chapter shall not apply with respect to any fishing contest not conducted for profit wherein prizes are awarded for the specie, size, weight, or quality of fish caught by contestants in any bona fide fishing or recreational event.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1953–2025 · leading case: United States v. McGarity
United States v. McGarity (2012) ca11 · cites it 2× “, the Court considered the phrase in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1305 (a)(1) and determined that it means "to stand in some relation; to have bearing or concern; to pertain; refer; to bring into association with or connection with.”
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States (1999) scotus · cites it 2× “451 , 18 U. S. C. § 1305 . Subsequent exemptions were more substantial.”
American Broadcasting Co. v. United States (1953) nysd · cites it 2× “" So it is not without significance that when Congress in 1950 wished to validate "any fishing contest not conducted for profit wherein prizes are awarded for the specie, size, weight, or quality of fish caught by contestants in any bona fide fishing or recreational event," it…”
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Association v. United States of America and Federal Communications Commission (1995) ca5 “Excepted from section 1304's application are advertisements for 1) fishing contests, 18 U.S.C. § 1305 ; 2) wagers on sporting events, 18 U.”
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n v. United States (1998) ca5 “Excepted from § 1304’s application are advertisements for (1) fishing contests, 18 U.S.C. § 1305 ; (2) wagers on sporting events, 18 U.”
United States v. Orito (1971) wied “In Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs, the court invalidated 18 U.S.C. § 1305 , stating (p. 37): “It prohibits an adult from importing an obscene book or picture for private reading or viewing, an activity which is constitutionally protected.”
Anderson v. City of Knoxville (2025) tned “He claims that the medical providers, whom he names as Defendants, made false statements about his health in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1305 [Id.]. He states that “[Defendant] City of Knoxville played a role in .”
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.