U.S. Code » Title 2 » Chapter CHAPTER 5— LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

2 U.S.C. § 1

ACQUISITION OF FACILITY IN CULPEPER, VIRGINIA.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 2 CasesGoogle Scholar
“(a)Acquisition.—The Architect of the Capitol may acquire on behalf of the United States Government by transfer of title, without reimbursement or transfer of funds, the following property:“(1) Three parcels totaling approximately 45 acres, more or less, located in Culpeper County, Virginia, and identified as Culpeper County Tax Parcel Numbers 51–80B, 51–80C, and 51–80D, further described as real estate (consisting of 40.949 acres) conveyed to David and Lucile Packard Foundation by deed from Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, dated May 15, 1998, and recorded May 19, 1998, in the Clerk’s Office, Circuit Court of Culpeper County, Virginia, in Deed Book 644, page 372; and real estate (consisting of 4.181 acres) conveyed to Packard Humanities Institute by deed from Russell H. Inskeep, dated February 13, 2002, and recorded February 13, 2002, in the Clerk’s Office, Circuit Court of Culpeper County, Virginia, as instrument number 020001299.“(2) Improvements to such real property.“(b)Uses.—Effective on the date on which the Architect of the Capitol acquires the property under subsection (a), such property shall be available to the Librarian of Congress for use as a national audiovisual conservation center.“(c)Transfer Payment by Architect.—Notwithstanding the limitation on reimbursement or transfer of funds under subsection (a) of this section, the Architect of the Capitol may, not later than 90 days after acquisition of the property under this section, transfer funds to the entity from which the property was acquired by the Architect of the Capitol. Such transfers may not exceed a total of $16,500,000.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997). · cites it 4× “Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court * Under 2 U. S. C. §§ 1 and 7, the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in an even-numbered year “is established” as the date for federal congressional elections.”
Judge v. Quinn, 612 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2010). “C Senator Burris offers a different reason — one based on federal law — why plaintiffs cannot succeed on the merits of their claim.”
Lamone v. Capozzi, 912 A.2d 674 (Md. 2006). · cites it 3× “” In Foster , Louisiana voters brought an action against state officials, alleging that the state’s “open primary” system was in conflict with 2 U.S.C. §§ 1 27 and 7. 28 522 U.S. at 68-69 , 118 S.”
Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Miller, 813 F. Supp. 821 (N.D. Ga. 1993). · cites it 4× “First, Defendants assert that federal law allows exceptions to the formula set forth in 2 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 7 in certain circumstances, and that Georgia’s run-off election was such an exception.”
Voting Integrity Proj., Inc. Fred Decker Alberta Bryant Diana Evans Charles Sauvie v. Phil Keisling, Sec'y of State Opinion of Oregon, 259 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “2 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 7; 3 U.S.C. § 1 . The manner of appointment is now by popular election but was formerly by the legislatures of some states.”
Love v. Foster, 90 F.3d 1026 (5th Cir. 1996). · cites it 7× “Senators in 2 U.S.C. § 1 : At the regular election held in any State next preceding the expiration of the term for which any Senator was elected to represent such State in Congress, at which election a Representative to Congress is regularly by law to be chosen, a United States…”
William Tedards, Jr. v. Doug Ducey, 951 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2020). “See 2 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 7. Therefore, Arizona’s primaries were held on August 28, 2018.”
Voting Integrity Proj., Inc. v. Bomer, 199 F.3d 773 (5th Cir. 2000). “Unlike traditional “absentee” voting statutes, the Texas Early Voting statutes do not require the voter to give any reason to vote early; the voter has the unrestricted right to vote early.”
Judge v. Quinn, 623 F. Supp. 2d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2009). · cites it 3× “See 2 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 7. Senator Burris argues that these provisions apply to Senate vacancy elections.”
Love v. Foster, 147 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “We reversed, holding that the plaintiffs were “entitled to a declaratory judgment that Louisiana’s election scheme conflicts with 2 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 7 to the extent that the Louisiana scheme authorizes a contested election for members of Congress to be decided in the open primary…”
Daggett v. Kimmelman, 617 F. Supp. 1269 (D.N.J. 1985). “2 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.; 28 U.S.C. § 2284 (a).”
PG Publ'g Co. v. Aichele, 902 F. Supp. 2d 724 (W.D. Pa. 2012). “2 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 7; 3 U.S.C. § 1 ; 25 Pa. Stat.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
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.