Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Bishop

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 29, 1973

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

48 entries 48 unlinked
Show
  1. U.S. 346 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Bishop
    Search
  2. U.S. 346 (1973) United States v. Bishop
    Search
  3. particularly Abdul v. United
    Search
  4. A. The Ninth Circuit rule appears to have been evolved from language in this Court's opinion in Spies v. United
    Search
  5. as we have said, is a word of many meanings, its construction often being influenced by its context. United States v. Murdock
    Search
  6. his conviction was reversed. On retrial, he was again convicted. He appealed, and the judgment was affirmed. Abdul v. United
    Search
  7. tax felonies and tax misdemeanors, a distinction also inconsistent with prior decisions of this Court. In Berra v. United
    Search
  8. the Berra facts were presented to the Court again in Sansone v. United
    Search
  9. We continue to recognize that context is important in the quest for the word's meaning. See United States v. Murdock
    Search
  10. United States v. Vitiello
    Search
  11. Sansone, 30 U.S. at 30 U. S. 353 . See James v. United
    Search
  12. McCarthy v. United
    Search
  13. is not met, therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith on a prior decision of this Court. James v. United
    Search
  14. States, 366 U.S. at 366 U. S. 221 -222. Cf. Lambert v. California
    Search
  15. was not required or proper, for, in the federal system, it is not the function of the jury to set the penalty. Berra v. United
    Search
  16. Compare United States v. Vitiello
    Search
  17. and 7203), and Haner v. United
    Search
  18. where the Ninth Circuit analysis was rejected, with United States v. Fahey
    Search
  19. Martin v. United
    Search
  20. Abdul v. United
    Search
  21. and 7203 of the 1954 Code). See also Janko v. United
    Search
  22. Lumetta v. United
    Search
  23. Escobar v. United
    Search
  24. have compounded the confusion. See n 8, infra. Cf. United States v. Lachmann
    Search
  25. United States v. Haseltine
    Search
  26. United States v. Fahey
    Search
  27. Eustis v. United
    Search
  28. Edwards v. United
    Search
  29. a) of the 1939 Code to income tax returns was not contested in Berra v. United
    Search
  30. Achilli v. United
    Search
  31. applicable to income tax violations. Sansone v. United
    Search
  32. See United States v. Ming
    Search
  33. United States v. Matosky
    Search
  34. United States v. Schipani
    Search
  35. This Court may be somewhat responsible for this imprecision because a similar analysis was employed in Spies v. United
    Search
  36. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Bishop
    Search
  37. Spies v. United
    Search
  38. Court. In Berra v. United
    Search
  39. Sansone v. United
    Search
  40. See United States v. Murdock
    Search
  41. See James v. United
    Search
  42. Court. James v. United
    Search
  43. Cf. Lambert v. California
    Search
  44. Berra v. United
    Search
  45. and Haner v. United
    Search
  46. Janko v. United
    Search
  47. Cf. United States v. Lachmann
    Search
  48. United States v. Murdock
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial