18 U.S.C. § 591
Repealed. Pub. L. 96–187, title II, § 201(a)(1), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1367]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 109
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1927–2025 · leading case: Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). “The only meaningful use for post-election funds is thus to repay loans; but loans, except from national banks, are "contributions" subject to the general limitations on contributions, 18 U. S. C. § 591 (e) (1970 ed., Supp. IV).”
Buckley v. Valeo, 519 F.2d 821 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “Limitations on Volunteers’ Incidental Expenses Question 3(c) 86 asks whether constitutional rights are''violated by the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 591 (e) 87 and § 608(b), 88 which limit the incidental expenses that volunteers working in a political campaign may incur to amounts…”
United States v. Kevin Eugene Wright, 16 F.3d 1429 (6th Cir. 1994). “)), 5 and it was on this statutory basis that the Court concluded that state law would provide the “standard by which to test arrests without warrant, except in those cases where Congress has enacted a federal rule.” Id.”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Colorado Repub. Fed. Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431 (2001). “" 18 U. S. C. § 591 (g) (1970 ed., Supp. IV); see also Buckley , 424 U.”
Chandler v. United States, 171 F.2d 921 (1st Cir. 1948). “§ 1014, 18 U.S. C.A. § 591. [2] Chandler was arraigned in Boston on January 20, 1947, and pleaded not guilty.”
Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975). “” Definitions of various terms in § 610 are included in 18 U. S. C. §591 (1970 ed., Supp. III). The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, Pub.”
United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948). “91 ), concerning arrest with warrant, provided: “That for any crime or offence against the United States, the offender may, by any justice or judge of the United States, or by any justice of the peace, or other magistrate of any of the United States where he may be found…”
Margaret S. Rodriguez v. Donald E. Ritchey, 556 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1977). “Those cases arose under the removal statute (then codified as 18 U.S.C. § 591 ; R.S. § 1014; ch. 252, § 19, 29 Stat.”
United States v. Jack L. Chestnut, 533 F.2d 40 (2d Cir. 1976). “” These terms were defined in a separate section, 18 U.S.C. § 591 , as follows, in pertinent part: “The term ‘contribution’ includes a gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit, of money, or anything of value .”
Janvey v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., Inc., 793 F. Supp. 2d 825 (N.D. Tex. 2011). “Referencing then- 18 U.S.C. § 591 , 22 Congress crafted a preemption provision “relating to amendments to the criminal code” in title I of the bill “to make it clear that [FECA] [was] intended to be the sole source of criminal sanctions for offenses involving political…”
Commonwealth v. Kindness, 371 A.2d 1346 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1977). “Although many of the challenges to the Act were based on First Amendment grounds, in one challenge appellants claimed that the method of appointing the seven members of the Federal Elections Commission violated the principle of separation of powers.”
Conley v. United States, 59 F.2d 929 (8th Cir. 1932). “’ (See authorities cited in notes 5 and 6, section 591, title 18, USCA).”
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.