Whenever during any insurrection against the Government of the United States, after the President shall have declared by proclamation that the laws of the United States are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals by law, any person, or his agent, attorney, or employee, purchases or acquires, sells or gives, any property of whatsoever kind or description, with intent to use or employ the same, or suffers the same to be used or employed in aiding, abetting, or promoting such insurrection or resistance to the laws, or any person engaged therein; or being the owner of any such property, knowingly uses or employs, or consents to such use or employment of the same, all such property shall be lawful subject of prize and capture wherever found; and it shall be the duty of the President to cause the same to be seized, confiscated, and condemned.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1928–2018 · leading case:
El-Ali v. State, 428 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. 2014).
El-Ali v. State, 428 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. 2014).
“319 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. § 212 ) (declaring that any property “used or employed, in aiding, abetting, or promoting [] insurrection or resistance to the laws, or any person or persons engaged therein; or if .”
United States v. Mayor & Council of City of Hoboken, NJ, 29 F.2d 932 (D.N.J. 1928).
“Justice Strong, who wrote the opinion in that case: “The whole doctrine of confiscation is built upon the foundation that it is an instrument of coercion, which, by depriving an enemy of property within reach of his power, whether within his territory or without it, impairs his…”
Schirripa v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 687 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
“Schirripa alleges claims under the “bounty” provision of Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the “seizure” clause of 50 U.S.C. § 212 , and 18 U.S.C. § 3071 . The claims are based on his allegations that there is an “unconventional” and…”
Schirripa v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2018).
· cites it 4× “He states that he “met the extraordinary (es- sential) elements of the contract,” id.”
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.