31 U.S.C. § 1350
Criminal penalty
An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government knowingly and willfully violating section 1341(a) or 1342 of this title shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2021 · leading case: Mw Builders, Inc. v. United States, 134 Fed. Cl. 469 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
Mw Builders, Inc. v. United States, 134 Fed. Cl. 469 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1350 ; Breach of Contract; Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.”
Martin v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 578 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “” Id (quoting 31 U.S.C. § 1350 ). The government’s- effort to establish good faith, however, elides the requirement that it “take active steps to ascertain the dictates of the FLSA and then act to comply with them.”
United States Dep't of Navy v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 665 F.3d 1339 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “31 U.S.C. § 1350 . Federal collective bargaining is not exempt from the rule that funds from the Treasury may not be expended except pursuant to congressional appropriations.”
Zimick v. West, 11 Vet. App. 45 (Vet. App. 1998). “§ 1341 (a); see also 31 U.S.C. § 1350 (providing for criminal penalties for the violation of § 1341(a)).”
Malone v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 539 (Vet. App. 1997). “§ 1341 (a); see also 31 U.S.C. § 1350 (providing for criminal penalties for the violation of § 1341(a)); Office of Personnel Management v.”
United States v. Coffee, 113 F. Supp. 2d 751 (E.D. Pa. 2000). “§ 1341 , a court "should not" order the expenditure of Government funds in the absence of statutory authority for such expenditure, and that were a court to do so, the judge "could conceivably” be open to criminal prosecution under 31 U.S.C. § 1350 , "a situation that might…”
Ins. Co. of North Am. v. Dist. of Columbia, 948 A.2d 1181 (D.C. 2008). “, 31 U.S.C. § 1350 (criminal penalties for violating the ADA); 31 U.”
Silver v. Babbitt, 924 F. Supp. 972 (D. Ariz. 1995). “31 U.S.C. § 1350 . Plaintiffs respond that the Anti-Deficiency Act is irrelevant because the clear language of the Rider allows FWS to continue in this case unless “impracticable.”
Martin v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2017). “(quoting 31 U.S.C. § 1350 ). The government’s effort to establish good faith, however, elides the requirement that it “take active steps to ascertain the dictates of the FLSA and then act to comply with them.”
Martin v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2017). “(quoting 31 U.S.C. § 1350 ). The government’s effort to establish good faith, however, elides the requirement that it “take active steps to ascertain the dictates of the FLSA and then act to comply with them.”
Rowe v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020). “” 31 U.S.C. § 1350 . And federal employees who violate the ADA “shall be subject to appropriate administrative discipline including, when circumstances warrant, suspension from duty without pay or removal from office.”
Tarovisky v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020). “” 31 U.S.C. § 1350 . And federal employees who violate the ADA “shall be subject to appropriate administrative discipline including, when circumstances warrant, suspension from duty without pay or removal from office.”
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.