Citation network
Bifulco Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 16, 1980
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Bifulco v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 447 U.S. 381 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Bifulco v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 447 U.S. 381 (1980) Bifulco v. UnitedSearch
-
authorizes the imposition of a special parole term. See United States v. BurmanSearch
-
F.2d 1354, 1356-1358 (CA4 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1118 (1979), and United States v. JacobsonSearch
-
F.2d 863, 867-868 (CA10), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 932 (1978). It also relied on the decision in United States v. DankertSearch
-
United States v. MearnsSearch
-
of the substantive ambit of criminal prohibitions, but also to the penalties they impose. See, e.g., United States v. BatchelderSearch
-
Simpson v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 435 U. S. 6 , 435 U. S. 14 -15 (1978). The Court's opinion in Ladner v. UnitedSearch
-
See Whalen v. UnitedSearch
-
Lewis v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
to which it is appended. See, e.g., United States v. JacobsonSearch
-
plainly means a term of incarceration plus special parole. See. e.g., United States v. JacquintoSearch
-
United States v. BrownSearch
-
an isolated act of distribution. In other contexts, we have recognized the logic of that view. See, e.g., Iannelli v. UnitedSearch
-
a special parole term where such a term is included in the penalty provisions of the target offense. See United States v. SellersSearch
-
F.2d 53, 58 (CA8 1979), and Cantu v. UnitedSearch
-
parole was authorized. For example, the question presented here may have lingered beneath the surface in United States v. TimmreckSearch
-
See United States v. JacquintoSearch
-
F.Supp. 728 (ED Pa.1979), and Fassette v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 444 F.Supp. 1245 (CD Cal.1978). Cf. United States v. WellsSearch
-
Congress must be taken at its word unless we are to assume the role of statute revisers. Aaron v. SECSearch
-
TVA v. HillSearch
-
in the administration of criminal justice, a badly drawn statute places strains on judges. See, e.g., Busic v. UnitedSearch
-
LaRocca v. UnitedSearch
-
It is unlikely that Congress so intended. See Callanan v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Bifulco v. UnitedSearch
-
See United States v. BurmanSearch
-
and United States v. JacobsonSearch
-
United States v. DankertSearch
-
Ladner v. UnitedSearch
-
Lewis v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. JacobsonSearch
-
United States v. JacquintoSearch
-
Iannelli v. UnitedSearch
-
See United States v. SellersSearch
-
and Cantu v. UnitedSearch
-
(ED Pa.1979), and Fassette v. UnitedSearch
-
(CD Cal.1978). Cf. United States v. WellsSearch
-
Busic v. UnitedSearch
-
See Callanan v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial