18 U.S.C. § 284
Repealed. Pub. L. 87–849, § 2, Oct. 23, 1962, 76 Stat. 1126]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1954–2000 · leading case: United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520 (1961).
United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520 (1961). “§ 99 and 18 U. S. C. § 284 indicate a different approach to the problem.”
John D. Shaw v. United States, 244 F.2d 930 (9th Cir. 1957). “) § 119 were revised and codified without substantive change as 18 U.S.C.A. § 284 and did not include such claims as that of Dushon because the Tort Claims Act, 28 U.”
Empire Linotype Sch., Inc. v. United States, 143 F. Supp. 627 (S.D.N.Y. 1956). “12 While the Government is not proceeding herein under any of the federal conflict of interest statutes, the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 284 are highly significant, because they clearly point up the impropriety of Strauss’ continuing to act as attorney in the matter involved in…”
O'Brien Gear & Mach. Co. v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 187 (Ct. Cl. 1979). “1954), the "claim” against the Government in a conflict-of-interest law, former 18 U.S.C. § 284 , was held not to include an application for an antitrust clearance letter, but to be limited to claims for money or property only.”
Van Ee v. Env't Prot. Agency, 202 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2000). “§ 99 (enacted in 1872, prohibiting former executive branch employee from prosecuting claim that had been pending at the time of his federal employment); 18 U.S.C. § 284 (composite of 1919 and 1944 acts as criminal analog to 5 U.”
United States v. Arthur Nasser, United States of Am. v. Richard W. Hauff, 476 F.2d 1111 (7th Cir. 1973). “When appellant Nasser became an employee of the United States, and during most of his service, he was subject to 18 U.S.C. § 284 , 62 Stat. 698 , a restriction on his practice of law or similar activity in the event of leaving government employment.”
Grumman Aerospace Corp. v. United States, 217 Ct. Cl. 285 (Ct. Cl. 1978). “Bergson for violating a statute prohibiting him, as an ex-government lawyer, from "prosecuting any claims against the United States involving any subject matter directly connected with which such person was so employed * * *,” 18 U.S.C. § 284 , as then codified. Having been…”
Hilo Metals Co., Ltd. v. Learner Co., 258 F. Supp. 23 (D. Haw. 1966). “Accordingly neither 18 U.S.C. § 284 7 nor Canon 6 8 of the American Bar Association Canons of Ethics is applicable.”
United States v. Bergson, 119 F. Supp. 459 (D.D.C. 1954). “What is the meaning of the term “claims against the United States” as used in Title 18 U.S.C. § 284 . 2. What is meant by the term “any subject matter directly connected with which such person (that is a person who had ceased employment in any agency of the Government within 2…”
United States v. Medico Indus., Inc., 609 F. Supp. 98 (N.D. Ill. 1985). “Given that § 207 was enacted to broaden the range of proceedings to which the conflict-of-interest provision applies, the term “particular matter” may well have been intended as a catch-all phrase to cover the situation where a former government employee uses inside government…”
Post-Emp. Restrictions on Former Geologist at Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n (OLC 1978). “It was also implicit in 18 U.S.C. § 284 , the predecessor of 18 U.”
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.