18 U.S.C. § 3285
Criminal contempt
No proceeding for criminal contempt within section 402 of this title shall be instituted against any person, corporation or association unless begun within one year from the date of the act complained of; nor shall any such proceeding be a bar to any criminal prosecution for the same act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: United States v. Lawrence Victor Miller, A/K/A Larry Miller, 588 F.2d 1256 (9th Cir. 1979).
United States v. Lawrence Victor Miller, A/K/A Larry Miller, 588 F.2d 1256 (9th Cir. 1979). “Miller contends: (2) the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; (3) the prosecution under count 1 was barred by the one year statute of limitations for criminal contempt, 18 U.S.C. § 3285 ; (4) the injunctive order lacked the specificity required to apprise Miller of…”
Benoit O. Brookens, II v. United States, 182 A.3d 123 (D.C. 2018). “§ 3282 ), the United States Code included a specific, one-year statute of limitations for contempt in 18 U.S.C. § 3285 . See infra . 13 See D.C.”
In Re Grand Jury Proceeding, 971 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2020). “1989) (recognizing that “the court always has available the sanction of criminal contempt” where a witness 6 The one-year statute of limitations prescribed by 18 U.S.C. § 3285 applies only to contempt proceedings “within [18 U.”
United States v. Woodard, 675 F.3d 1147 (8th Cir. 2012). “Statute of Limitations Defense Woodard argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the petition for contempt because the petition was time-barred by the statute of limitations in 18 U.S.C. § 3285 . Section 3285 provides that “[n]o proceeding for…”
In Re Winslow, 186 B.R. 716 (D. Colo. 1995). “Attorney opined that the 1992 criminal contempt proceedings against Winslow were untimely under the one year statute of limitations set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3285 . See n. 5, supra. The civil contempt proceedings being reviewed here are not subject to § 3285 and were initiated as…”
Nat'l Org. for Women v. Operation Rescue, 929 F. Supp. 461 (D.D.C. 1996). “18 U.S.C. § 3285 . Defendants therefore argue that § 3285 bars any criminal prosecution for contempt of court for actions that occurred more than one year before the initiation of the prosecution.”
United States v. Diapulse Corp. of Am., 365 F. Supp. 935 (E.D.N.Y 1973). “§ 390 (as it is now in 18 U.S.C. § 3285 ) but it was not referred to as the applicable statute.”
United States v. Henry, 519 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2008). “He notes that, in 18 U.S.C. § 3285 , Congress explicitly declared that criminal contempt proceedings instituted pursuant to 18 U.”
United States v. David Eugene Duncan, 503 F.2d 1021 (10th Cir. 1974). “§ 402 provides in part: Any person * * * willfully disobeying any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree or command of any district court of the United States * * * by doing any act or thing therein, or thereby forbidden, if the act or thing so done be of such character as to…”
In Re Grand Jury Proceeding (2d Cir. 2020). “may hold in contempt a witness who, without adequate excuse, 5 As we vacate the district court’s sanctions order, we do not reach Oberlander’s alternative arguments that the sanctions were improper because he was not granted a hearing, that the record did not demonstrate that…”
Haskins v. Commonwealth of Virginia (E.D. Va. 2022). “at 7 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3285 (criminal contempt)).) In Claim Three, Plaintiff concludes that Defendants committed “federal grand larceny.”
MIMG CLXXII Retreat on 6th, LLC v. Mackenzie Miller & Parties in Possession (Iowa 2025). “730 (1914) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 3285 )). In Fischer v. United States, 603 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.