Dixson v. United States
United States Supreme Court
465 U.S. 482 (1984)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Dixson (defendant) was executive director of United Neighborhoods, Incorporated (UNI), a nonprofit organization. Hinton was UNI’s housing rehabilitation coordinator. UNI was the subgrantee for the City of Peoria, which had received two federal block grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The HUD block-grant program was intended to promote the development of viable urban communities across the United States. Dixson and Hinton were in charge of the award of contracts in compliance with federal regulations and the allocation of federal funds. Dixson and Hinton extracted kickbacks from contractors who worked on UNI housing projects. Per the testimony of two contractors, Dixson and Hinton solicited kickbacks of 10 percent of each housing contract awarded to the contractors. A federal grand jury indicted Dixson and Hinton for bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(a). The two men were charged as public officials who were influenced in the performance of an official act related to the HUD block-grant program. Dixson and Hinton filed motions to dismiss the indictment prior to trial because they were not public officials for purposes of the federal bribery statute. They were convicted after a jury trial. The two men appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The circuit court affirmed the district court convictions. Dixson and Hinton appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Marshall, J.)
Dissent (O’Connor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.