2 U.S.C. § 95
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1976–1995 · leading case: United States Ex Rel. Hollander v. Clay, 420 F. Supp. 853 (D.D.C. 1976).
United States Ex Rel. Hollander v. Clay, 420 F. Supp. 853 (D.D.C. 1976). “He claims that this suit is barred on four grounds: (1) the Speech or Debate clause; (2) the article 1, section 5 provision of the Constitution relating to punishment and expulsion of members of Congress; (3) the political question doctrine; and (4) the provisions of the statute…”
United States v. David F. Durenberger, 48 F.3d 1239 (D.C. Cir. 1995). “1976), reached the same conclusion with respect to 2 U.S.C. § 95 , the House counterpart to § 68.”
United States v. Eilberg, 507 F. Supp. 267 (E.D. Pa. 1980). “Payments made upon vouchers approved by said Committee shall be deemed, held, and taken, and are declared to be conclusive upon all the departments and officers of the Government: Provided, That no payment shall be made from said contingent fund as additional salary or…”
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.