18 U.S.C. § 836

Transportation of fireworks into State prohibiting sale or use

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

Whoever, otherwise than in the course of continuous interstate transportation through any State, transports fireworks into any State, or delivers them for transportation into any State, or attempts so to do, knowing that such fireworks are to be delivered, possessed, stored, transshipped, distributed, sold, or otherwise dealt with in a manner or for a use prohibited by the laws of such State specifically prohibiting or regulating the use of fireworks, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

This section shall not apply to a common or contract carrier or to international or domestic water carriers engaged in interstate commerce or to the transportation of fireworks into a State for the use of Federal agencies in the carrying out or the furtherance of their operations.

In the enforcement of this section, the definitions of fireworks contained in the laws of the respective States shall be applied.

As used in this section, the term “State” includes the several States, Territories, and possessions of the United States, and the District of Columbia.

This section shall be effective from and after July 1, 1954.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1965–2022 · leading case: United States v. James A. Womack

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. James A. Womack (1981) ca5 “He cites 18 U.S.C.A. § 836 , which prohibits the transportation of fireworks into a state prohibiting the sale of such fireworks and which also provides that state law shall define fireworks.”

United States v. Bernard J. Semel (1965) ca4 “The defendant was charged by an information containing eighteen counts with violating 18 U.S.C.A. § 836 by having feloniously caused to be transported from Maryland into Virginia certain fireworks, knowing that they were to be delivered and sold in violation of the laws of…”

Lamar Dees v. W. M. Webb, Inc. And the Home Indemnity Co., Stoneco, Inc., Third Party (1979) ca3 “1 (1962); 18 U.S.C. § 836 (1976); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1261 , 1263 (1976); and C.”

United States v. Frederick G. Norton (1987) ca1 “See 18 U.S.C. § 836 (federal crime to transport fireworks into state for use in violation of laws of that state; maximum penalty one year imprisonment and/or $1,000 fine).”

United States v. Spiezio (1981) paed “Defendants maintain that Congress has used the word “fireworks” at 18 U.S.C. § 836 . Thus, according to the defendants, Congress did not intend to mean that fireworks were included in the statutes involved in the proceedings before me.”

Wagner Aeronautical, Inc. v. Dotzenroth (2022) casd “May 20, 2019) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 836 (b)). 27 But plaintiffs made such a disclosure for the other defendants against whom there 28 are state trade-secret claims.”

AbbVie Inc. v. Alvotech hf. (2021) ilnd “) Plaintiffs bring this action for alleged violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2019, 18 U.S.C. §§ 836 (b)-(c) and the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, 765 ILCS 1065/1.”

D. M. Rottermond Inc. v. Shiklanian (2021) mied “Shiklanian's post-employment non-competition agreement that she had signed on January 28, 2017 when employed by Plaintiff, and for misappropriation of trade secrets under the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 836 , et seq., and Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act.”

Performance Automotive Group, Inc. v. Fernandez (2021) nced “, and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, 18 U.S.C. §§ 836 (b)(1). Plaintiff also brings claims under North Carolina law for violation of the North Carolina Computer-Related Crime Act, N.”

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.