18 U.S.C. § 1914
Repealed. Pub. L. 87–849, § 2, Oct. 23, 1962, 76 Stat. 1126]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152 (1990).
Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152 (1990). “First, it noted that prior to its codification as § 209(a) of the Criminal Code in 1962, the plain language of the predecessor statute at 18 U. S. C. § 1914 (1958 ed.) was unambiguously limited to whoever, "being a Government official or employee," received any salary.”
United States v. Charles T. Muntain, A/K/A \Red Muntain\"", 610 F.2d 964 (D.C. Cir. 1979). “An Attorney General’s Opinion dealing with 18 U.S.C. § 1914 , the predecessor of § 209, defines the scope of the statute as follows: “The statute clearly covers a salary received from a private person or source if it is paid or received as compensation or partial compensation…”
United States v. Mumma, 509 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2007). “Mumma waived prosecution by indictment and was charged by information with one count of making a false statement to a financial institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1914 and one count of bankruptcy fraud for failing to disclose all bank accounts in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. The Boeing Co., Inc. Melvyn R. Paisley Thomas K. Jones Herbert Reynolds Harold J. Kitson Lawrence H. Crandon, 845 F.2d 476 (4th Cir. 1988). “§ 1914 , and provided “[wjhoever, being a Government official or employee, receives any salary in connection with his services_” In 1962, Congress eliminated the phrase “being a Government official or employee,” a phrase which did require employment status at the time of payment.”
Kirkpatrick v. White, 351 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (N.D. Ala. 2004). “On May 29, 2001,- PFD issued show cause letters to DESE and Wallace Kirkpatrick concerning possible violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1914 3 and FAR § 31.205.22(a).”
Westfall v. Trump (N.D.W. Va. 2020). “§ 1914 In his objections, Westfall notes that the Magistrate Judge’s R&R cites 18 U.S.C. § 1914 , a criminal statute, on pages 3-4.”
K.D.R. v. Keeley (M.D. Fla. 2024). “Under 18 U.S.C. § 1914 , “[t]he clerk of each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such court, whether by original process, removal or otherwise, to pay a filing fee of $350.”
Roche v. Larc, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2024). “Under 18 U.S.C. § 1914 , “[t]he clerk of each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such court, whether by original process, removal or otherwise, to pay a filing fee of $350.”
Napper v. State of Florida (M.D. Fla. 2025). “) Under 18 U.S.C. § 1914 , “[t]he clerk of each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such court, whether by original process, removal or otherwise, to pay a filing fee of $350.”
Sheets v. Davoult (M.D. Fla. 2025). “§ 1914 , “[t]he clerk of each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such court, whether by original process, removal or otherwise, to pay a filing fee of $350.” “To commence a civil lawsuit in federal district court, the…”
Pepe v. Marceno (M.D. Fla. 2025). “” “To commence a civil lawsuit in federal district court, the general rule is that initiating parties must prepay a filing fee.”
Brown v. Kirshy (M.D. Fla. 2025). “§ 1914 , “[t]he clerk of each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such court, whether by original process, removal or otherwise, to pay a filing fee of $350.” “To commence a civil lawsuit in federal district court, the…”
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.