18 U.S.C. § 334
Issuance of Federal Reserve or national bank notes
Whoever, being a Federal Reserve Agent, or an agent or employee of such Federal Reserve Agent, or of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, issues or puts in circulation any Federal Reserve notes, without complying with or in violation of the provisions of law regulating the issuance and circulation of such Federal Reserve notes; or
Whoever, being an officer acting under the provisions of chapter 2 of Title 12, countersigns or delivers to any national banking association, or to any other company or person, any circulating notes contemplated by that chapter except in strict accordance with its provisions—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1911–2022 · leading case: Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc.
Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc. (1946)
“1129 , 18 U.S.C. § 334 ), and has applied criminal sanctions for the enforcement of that policy.”
Parmelee v. United States (1940)
“1339 , 18 U.S.C.A. § 334 (mailing obscene matter).”
United States v. Jay Ellsworth Krepps (1979)
“729 ), § 592 contained the substantive elements of what is now 18 U.S.C. §§ 334 , 656 and 1005, and included the phrase, “with intent, [in either case,] to injure or defraud such [bank] .”
United States v. One Package (1936)
“Code, § 211 [ 18 U.S.C.A. § 334 and note]) declaring nonmailable "every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for preventing conception or producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use," was held not to cover physicians using the mails in order to say that…”
Walker v. Popenoe (1945)
“Appellees have been prevented for a long period of time from mailing a publication which we now find contains nothing offensive to current standards of public decency. A full hearing is the minimum protection required by due process to prevent that kind of injury.”
Roth v. Goldman (1949)
“The vagaries of censorship are perhaps suggested by the fact that only one of these books was excluded as "obscene, lewd, or lascivious," 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 334 , 339 [now §§ 1461, 1342], 39 U.”
United States v. Levine (1936)
“Code, § 211; 18 U.S.C.A. § 334 ) was directed against stimulating sensuality, and that this was not to be measured by its effect, either upon “the highly educated” or upon the “highly prudish,” but “on the usual, average human mind.”
Ross v. United States (1939)
“1346-RJ) with having violated 18 U.S.C.A. § 334 . Count six of this indictment was abandoned by the Government during the trial and was dismissed by the Court.”
Cain v. Universal Pictures Co. (1942)
“In determining whether a work is indecent or immoral, I would adopt the tests laid down in cases arising under the Postal Statutes, 18 U.S.C.A. § 334 , denying mailing privileges to indecent works.”
Youngs Rubber Corporation v. CI Lee & Co. (1930)
“The question then arises whether such a violation precludes the maintenance of a trade-mark infringement suit by reason of section 21 of the Trade-Mark Act. That section bars the remedy only “when the trade-mark is used in unlawful business”; and it may be persuasively urged…”
United States v. Ross (1953)
“In other words, does the offense involve the use of the mails, as that phrase is used in § 3237, supra? Section 1461, supra, is based on 18 U.S.C.A. § 334 . As originally enacted, § 334 was derived from the Act of June 8, 1872, 17 Stat.”
Burstein v. United States (1950)
“Burstein was found guilty of depositing for mailing an obscene, lewd, lascivious and filthy book entitled “Confessions of a Prostitute”, and of depositing for mailing a mimeographed letter giving information as to where and how the book might be obtained, contrary to 18 U.S.C.A.…”
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.