2 U.S.C. § 57
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1980–2011 · leading case: United States v. Daniel D. Rostenkowski, 59 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
United States v. Daniel D. Rostenkowski, 59 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 1995). “the amounts of allowances [for clerk hire] (including the terms, conditions, and other provisions pertaining to those allowances),” 2 U.S.C. § 57 , which the Committee on House Administration did when it prohibited the personal use of funds from that allowance in the…”
United States v. Charles C. Diggs, Jr., 613 F.2d 988 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “See 2 U.S.C. § 57 (a)(1) (1976) (Committee on House Administration may fix the amount of the allowance for clerk hire).”
Schonberg v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 792 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2011). “In particular, the amended complaint named the United States as an additional defendant, alleged that the statute governing “Representational allowance for Members of House of Representatives,” 2 U.S.C. § 57 (b) (hereinafter “the MRA”), violated various constitutional…”
United States v. Eilberg, 553 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1981). “This debate focused on the Committee on House Administration’s apparent abandonment of the stipulations in the provision and the impact of 2 U.S.C. § 57 on section 46g’s current validity.”
United States v. Eilberg, 507 F. Supp. 267 (E.D. Pa. 1980). “(B) The enactment of 2 U.S.C. § 57 ( Pub.L. 92-184, 85 Stat. 636): As described above, House Resolution 161 of the Ninetieth Congress, enacted into permanent law in 1968 as Public Law 90-392, 82 Stat.”
Schonberg v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 792 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2011). “Steve Schonberg brings this action against the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) and the United States, challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (“FECA”) and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”); the statute…”
Schonberg v. Fed. Election Comm'n (D.D.C. 2011). “Steve Schonberg brings this action against the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) and the United States, challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (“FECA”) and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”); the statute…”
Schonberg v. Fed. Election Comm'n (D.D.C. 2011). “In particular, the amended complaint named the United States as an additional defendant, alleged that the statute governing “Representational allowance for Members of House of Representatives,” 2 U.S.C. § 57 (b) (hereinafter “the MRA”), violated various constitutional…”
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.