18 U.S.C. § 14
Repealed. Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4004(a), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1812]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: United States v. Holmes
United States v. Holmes (1976)
“§ 1382 are made applicable to the Canal Zone as well by 18 U.S.C. § 14 . 6 . It is stipulated that the area described in the Presidential Proclamation, which purported to acquire the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, included the waters of the Bush River in the area here in question as…”
Greater Oceans, Inc. v. Eric Thorstenson (2024)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 14 1839(5). Thus, to state a claim for trade secret misappropriation under the DTSA, a 15 plaintiff must allege that: “(1) the plaintiff owned a trade secret; (2) the defendant 16 misappropriated the trade secret; and (3) the defendant’s actions damaged the 17…”
Cbs Corporation v. FCC (2011)
“14 Imposing a higher scienter standard than recklessness, such as the actual knowledge or intent standard urged by CBS, dilutes the duty imposed by Congress in 18 U.S.C. § 14 At common law, the concept of recklessness could be expressed in a variety of ways.”
Cbs Corporation v. FCC (2011)
“14 Imposing a higher scienter standard than recklessness, such as the actual knowledge or intent standard urged by CBS, dilutes the duty imposed by Congress in 18 U.S.C. § 14 At common law, the concept of recklessness could be expressed in a variety of ways.”
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.