18 U.S.C. § 1861

Deception of prospective purchasers

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

Whoever, for a reward paid or promised to him in that behalf, undertakes to locate for an intending purchaser, settler, or entryman any public lands of the United States subject to disposition under the public-land laws, and who willfully and falsely represents to such intending purchaser, settler, or entryman that any tract of land shown to him is public land of the United States subject to sale, settlement, or entry, or that it is of a particular surveyed description, with intent to deceive the person to whom such representation is made, or who, in reckless disregard of the truth, falsely represents to any such person that any tract of land shown to him is public land of the United States subject to sale, settlement, or entry, or that it is of a particular surveyed description, thereby deceiving the person to whom such representation is made, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 31 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: Patterson v. Mobil Oil Corp.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Patterson v. Mobil Oil Corp. (2003) ca5 “In the instant case, the plaintiffs, Ozan Patterson and John Ballenger, are using this theory to allege a variety of civil violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq. Originally, Patterson and Ballenger brought this…”

Prieto v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance (2001) txnd “031 (West 1995); 13) violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq. (1994); and 14) for payment of attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.”

United States v. Walter \Frenchy\" Bagnell" (1982) ca11 “Furthermore, “division” is defined to include “in judicial districts where there are no statutory divisions, such counties, parishes, or similar political subdivisions surrounding the places where court is held as the district court plan shall determine.” 28 U.S.”

United States v. Barlow (2010) nyed “Overview of the Jury Formation Process 19 The process of forming a jury venire in this District is governed by the Jury Selection and Service Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1861 , et seq. and by the Jury Selection Plan for the Eastern District of New York (“the Jury Plan”).”

State v. Charlesworth (1997) orctapp “715(6)(b) to incorporate only the version of 18 USC § 1861 that existed at its enactment.”

United States v. Richard Clark and Christine Kunkel (1984) ca7 “Miss Kunkel is white; but whites, as we have had occasion to note recently, have a constitutional (Sixth Amendment) and statutory ( 18 U.S.C. § 1861 ) right to object to being tried by a jury from which blacks have been excluded because of their race.”

United States v. Kaiyo Maru Number 53 (1980) akd “ces, stores, and cargo) used or employed in, or with respect to which it reasonably appears that such vessel was used or employed in, the violation of any provision of this chapter; (D) seize any fish (wherever found) taken or retained in violation of any provision of this…”

Fletcher v. Haas (2012) mad “§ 611 (limiting who can vote in federal elections to citizens); 18 U.S.C. § 1861 (jury service). All of the voting, 13 *296 right to public office, and jury service rights and restrictions have a common theme: they are integral to self-governance, a public good.”

Robbins v. Bureau of Land Management (2003) wyd “18 U.S.C. §§ 1861 , 1862. The Hobbs Act, in turn, defines extortion and makes it unlawful.”

Brink v. Xe Holding, LLC (2012) dcd “§ 948a, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.”

United States v. Isac Schwarzbaum (2025) ca11 “from peonage, slavery, or trafficking in persons); 18 U.S.C. § 1861 (deceiving prospective land purchasers); 18 U.”

Local 875 I.B.T. Pension Fund v. Pollack (1998) nyed “18 U.S.C. §§ 1861 et seq., the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.”

Show all 31 citing cases →

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.