28 U.S.C. § 454
Practice of law by justices and judges
Any justice or judge appointed under the authority of the United States who engages in the practice of law is guilty of a high misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1928–2026 · leading case: Whitmore Ex Rel. Simmons v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990).
Whitmore Ex Rel. Simmons v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990). “§ 754; 28 U. S. C. § 454 (1940 ed.) (emphasis added).”
Dorsey v. Gill, 148 F.2d 857 (D.C. Cir. 1945). “" [48] 28 U.S.C.A. § 454 . [49] 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 451 , 452, 454; In re Greene, 78 U.”
Pikulin v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 71 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “§ 1986 (“§ 1986”); (2) the judge engaged in the practice of law by providing testimony in *73 the case in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 454 ; (3) two state attorneys general engaged in fraud, falsified documents, and violated the testimonial restrictions found in Federal Rules of…”
State Bar of Nevada v. Claiborne, 756 P.2d 464 (Nev. 1988). “See 28 U.S.C. § 454 (1982); cf. SCR 98. The policy underlying SCR 111 is to afford protection to the public while disciplinary proceedings are pending against active, practicing members of the bar who have been convicted of criminal offenses reflecting upon their fitness to…”
In re: Omar Khadr, 823 F.3d 92 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “Fourth, Khadr claims that Judge Pollard has violated 28 U.S.C. § 454 . That section states in its entirety: “Any justice or judge appointed under the authority of the United States who engages in the practice of law is guilty of a high misdemeanor.”
Gipson v. Callahan, 18 F. Supp. 2d 662 (W.D. Tex. 1997). “…fictitious name and address through the mail), § 1621 (perjury), and § 1512 (obstruction of justice); violations of 28 U.S.C. § 454 (practice of law by justices and judges); violations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) (relief from judgment or order for mistakes,…”
United States v. George Robert Bosch, Jr., 951 F.2d 1546 (9th Cir. 1991). “§ 458 (barring nepotism in judicial hiring and appointments); 28 U.S.C. §§ 454 , 632, 955 (outlawing the practice of law by judges, magistrates, and court clerks respectively); 18 U.”
Ex Parte Rosier, 133 F.2d 316 (D.C. Cir. 1942). “Elizabeths Hospital, a Government institution. Therefore in this opinion we shall refer to the Government as the party opposed to the appellant.”
United States v. Rachels, 6 M.J. 232 (1979). “any court created by Act of Congress, the judges of which are entitled to hold office during good behavior,” we conclude the statute is inapplicable to military judges.”
Jones v. Biddle, 131 F.2d 853 (8th Cir. 1942). “See 28 U.S. C.A. § 454. The order appealed from is affirmed.”
Hastings v. Jud. Conf. of United States, 593 F. Supp. 1371 (D.D.C. 1984). “788 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 454 ). Since those early years, Congress has placed limits on individual Article III judges in many other ways, such as requiring disclosure of personal wealth (and penalizing nondisclosure), 19 mandating that criminal trials be conducted within a…”
James Henry Audett v. United States, 265 F.2d 837 (9th Cir. 1959). “28 U.S.C. § 454 . 10 . 28 U.S.C. § 556 . 11 .”
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.