Skip to main content

Application of 18 U.S.C. § 209 to Employee-Inventors Who Receive Outside Royalty Payments

OLCSeptember 7, 2000

Case Details

Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Legal opinion/advisory memorandum from Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

This is a legal opinion analyzing the application of 18 U.S.C. § 209 to federal employee-inventors regarding outside royalty payments, not a case with a traditional outcome or damages award.

Similar Rulings

FLRA
D.C. CircuitMar 2014
Mixed Result
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
D.D.C.Sep 2016
Mixed Result
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
D.D.C.Feb 2013
Mixed Result
Orr
Unknown CourtMar 1902

<p>The JReporteri statement of the case:</p> <p>The material allegations of the petition will be found in the opinion of the court.</p> <p>Congress had discovered that there was a lurking equity somewhere in the date of any officer’s appointment, and with most commendable perseverance had sought to find, and to provide for it, but thus far had failed.</p> <p>The next attempt was, we submit, more successful. Ten years later the act approved February 2d, 1897, was passed (29 Stat. L., 593). It was identical in intent with the former legislation but it used the disjunctive conjunction “or” between the words “ appointment” and “ commission.” It says * * * ‘c shall be held and considered to have been mustered into the service of the United States in the grade named in his appointment or commission * * * .” For the first time t íe two things, which are in themselves entirely different, were severed and disassociated .by the word “or.” There can be no commission without an appointment, but there may be an appointment which is not succeeded bjr a commission. The latter is merely the evidence of the former. Appointing and commissioning are distinct acts. (Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137; Oollins v. TJ. 8., 15 C. Cls. R., 31; Kilbvrn v. TJ. 8., Id., 17; Young v. TJ. 8., 19 C. Cls. R., 153; Bennett v. TJ. 8., Id., 385). Until the passage of the act of 1897 commissions and appointments had been treated as and given the effect of being one and inseparable by the use of the word “and.”</p> <p>It is true that the disjunctive and conjunctive conjunctions are frequently used interchangeably and are sometimes synonymous, but they must not be so considered when they •can be given their ordinary and usual meaning. If no other reason could be shown for making this change, the condition of the New York and Kentucky regiments is sufficient, but every consideration of justice and equity leads to the conclusion that an officer’s pay should commence from the date he actually entered upon d

Dismissed
Allen
OhioJan 2001

Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Eighteen-month suspension with nine months of suspension stayed—Accepting employment when the exercise of attorney's professional judgment may be affected by attorney's personal interests—Neglect of an entrusted legal matter—Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law.

Defendant Win

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.