Legal Opinion
United States v. Molak
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Decided January 9, 2002No. 00-2200PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SELYA, Circuit Judge.
Lawyers can — and often do — wrangle over the meaning of even the most pedestrian language. So it is here: the appellant insists that the term “child,” as used in the Child Support Recovery Act, 18 U.S.C. § 228 (1994 & Supp. V 1999) (the Act), encompasses only persons under 18 years of age. For its part, the government advocates a less restrictive definition. Writing on a pristine page — no federal appellate court has heretofore construed the meaning of the disputed term — we reject the appellant’s cramped construction and affirm the judgment below.
The facts are for all…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Spencer v. KemnaSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Stinson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Ankenbrandt Ex Rel. L. R. v. RichardsSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- United States v. Frank P. Bongiorno, United States of America v. Frank P. BongiornoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1997
- United States v. PiperCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- United States v. JacksonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008
- United States v. DeleonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2006
- United States v. ProchnerCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2005
- United States v. Willard HartsockCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2003
- United States v. Cruzado-LaureanoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2008
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.