United States v. Menendez
District Court, D. New Jersey
1Opinion of the Court
Defendants contend that Ganim 's reliance on the distinction between gratuities and bribery cases is a misreading of Sun-Diamond. They argue that McDonnell clarified this misreading by adopting Sun-Diamond's interpretation of "official act," thereby incorporating its requirements wholesale in all cases brought under section 201. ECF NO. 177-1, at 5; see McDonnell , 136 S.Ct. at 2370 ("It is apparent from Sun-Diamond that hosting an event, meeting with other officials, or speaking with interested parties is not, standing alone, a 'decision or action' within the meaning of § 201(a)(3)....").
But…
2Cases cited55 opinions
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- United States v. GaudinSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Cheek v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States v. Alexander Sittenfeld aka P.G. SittenfeldCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2025
- United States v. PawlowskiDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2018
- In Re Powered by People and Robert Francis O'Rourke v. the State of Texas, Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District2025
- Richard R Lawless v. The Security & Exchange CommissionDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2023
- United States v. Matthew BorgesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2025