U.S. Code » Title 34 » Subtitle Subtitle II— Protection of Children and Other Persons › Chapter CHAPTER 217— ELDER ABUSE PREVENTION AND PROSECUTION

34 U.S.C. § 21701

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 34 CasesGoogle Scholar
In this chapter—(1) the terms “abuse”, “adult protective services”, “elder”, “elder justice”, “exploitation”, “law enforcement”, and “neglect” have the meanings given those terms in section 1397j of title 42;(2) the term “elder abuse” includes abuse, neglect, and exploitation of an elder; and(3) the term “State” means each of the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States.(Pub. L. 115–70, § 2, Oct. 18, 2017, 131 Stat. 1208.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 115–70, Oct. 18, 2017, 131 Stat. 1208, known as the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 2017 Amendment note set out under section 10101 of this title and Tables.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case: Stone v. Trump (D. Conn. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stone v. Trump (D. Conn. 2020). “18, 2017) (codified at 34 U.S.C. § 21701 et seq.). The bill was introduced by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa on January 20, 2017, and its 1 Although the Court will not address it at this time, there also is a serious question as to whether this Court has personal jurisdiction…”
Stone v. Trump (D. Conn. 2020). “18, 2017) (codified at 34 U.S.C. § 21701 et seq.). They allege that this bill covers up what Plaintiffs call “the Guardian Human Trafficking/Corruption Racket.”
Stone v. Trump (D. Conn. 2020). “18, 2017) (codified at 34 U.S.C. § 21701 et seq.). They allege that this bill covers up what Plaintiffs call “the Guardian Human Trafficking/Corruption Racket.”
Hammerlord (S.D. Cal. 2026). “In his original Complaint, Plaintiff 2 relied on California law as the legal basis for this claim, but he now relies on the Elder 3 Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act, 34 U.S.C. § 21701 , et seq. This federal law, 4 however, “does not provide a private right of action.”
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.