18 U.S.C. § 434
Repealed. Pub. L. 87–849, § 2, Oct. 23, 1962, 76 Stat. 1126]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1949–2024 · 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). “t First Boston was likely to benefit, and as subsequently developed, in fact, did benefit, from the contract here in question; that Wenzell, as an officer of First Boston, was therefore "directly or indirectly" interested in the contract which he, as an agent of the Government,…”
Veridyne Corp. v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 575 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “That statute was codified as 18 U.S.C. § 434 . The current statute, now codified as 18 U.”
Mississippi Valley Generating Co. v. United States, 175 F. Supp. 505 (Ct. Cl. 1959). “" Our conclusion is that Wenzell's activities were not within the prohibition of the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 434 , [1] on which the Government relies, nor were they *518 such as to render the contract in question unenforcible on grounds of public policy.”
TRW Env't Saf. Sys., Inc. v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 33 (Ct. Cl. 1989). “The Supreme Court in Mississippi Valley placed great emphasis on the legislative purpose behind the statute there in question, 18 U.S.C. § 434 , a predecessor to 18 U.S.”
United States v. Robert Lewis Hedges, 912 F.2d 1397 (11th Cir. 1990). “It observed that “[t]he obvious purpose of the statute is to insure honesty in the Government’s business dealings by preventing federal agents who have interests adverse to those of the Government from advancing their own interests at the expense of the public welfare.”
L. M. Smith, Also Known as Laurence M. Smith, & Earl C. Corey v. United States, 305 F.2d 197 (9th Cir. 1962). “In Count X it was charged that between April 26, 1956 and May 1, 1959, Corey, being a partner, member officer, and agent of Three-State Warehouse Company, and directly and indirectly interested in the profits and contracts of that partnership, was employed and acted as an…”
United States v. Eugene Donald Schaltenbrand, 930 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991). “It observed that “[t]he obvious purpose of the statute is to insure honesty in the Government’s business dealings by preventing federal agents who have interests adverse to those of the Government from advancing their own interests at the expense of the public welfare.”
State v. Green Mountain Future, 2013 VT 87 (Vt. 2013). “Supreme Court addressed challenges to a number of provisions of the federal campaign finance law in force at that time, including 18 U.S.C. § 434 (e). 4 424 U.S. at 75-82 .”
United States v. Louis Irons, 640 F.2d 872 (7th Cir. 1981). “Section 208 was enacted in 1962 primarily to correct the perceived inadequacies of its predecessor, 18 U.S.C. § 434 . Section 434 provided: Whoever, being an officer, agent or member or directly or indirectly interested in the pecuniary profits or contracts of any corporation,…”
K & R Eng'g Co. v. United States, 222 Ct. Cl. 340 (Ct. Cl. 1980). “Mississippi Valley involved the interpretation and application of the predecessor conflict-of-interest statute, 18 U.S.C. § 434 , which differed in substance from the present statute only in that its scope was narrower.”
United States v. Paul G. Gorman, 807 F.2d 1299 (6th Cir. 1987). “was directed at 18 U.S.C. § 434 , the predecessor to Section 208.”
Acme Process Equip. Co. v. United States, 171 Ct. Cl. 324 (Ct. Cl. 1965). “703 , 18 U.S.C. § 434 , in the negotiation of a contract entered into with the United States.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 434(b)(3) — 1 case
United States v. Hsia, 30 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
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.