Citation network
United States Vs. Bailey
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 21, 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
-
U.S. 394 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. BaileySearch
-
U.S. 394 (1980) United States v. BaileySearch
-
Hamling v. UnitedSearch
-
in fleshing out the bare bones of a crime that Congress may have proscribed in a single sentence. See Morissette v. UnitedSearch
-
Morissette v. UnitedSearch
-
As we pointed out in United States v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
has stated that the Government must demonstrate that the defendant acted with a purpose to aid the enemy. See Haupt v. UnitedSearch
-
In United States v. FeolaSearch
-
United States v. WilkeSearch
-
a) was his only reasonable alternative. See United States v. BoomerSearch
-
F.2d 543, 545 (CA10), cert. denied sub nom. Heft v. UnitedSearch
-
People v. RichardsSearch
-
Toussie v. UnitedSearch
-
a) defines a continuing offense. See, e.g., United States v. MichelsonSearch
-
United States v. CluckSearch
-
United States v. JoinerSearch
-
Together with United States v. CodellSearch
-
Compare Morissette v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 342 U. S. 246 , 342 U. S. 250 -263 (1952), with United States v. DotterweichSearch
-
crime for which punishment can be imposed without proof of any mens rea at all. As we held in Morissette v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. UnitedSearch
-
R.I. Recreation Center, Inc. v. AetnaSearch
-
of limitations normally applicable to federal offenses would be tolled while he remained at large. See, e.g., Howgate v. UnitedSearch
-
Congress, in enacting criminal statutes, legislates against a background of Anglo-Saxon common law, see Morissette v. UnitedSearch
-
Compare, for example, Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
U. S. 678 , with Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
See Estelle v. GambleSearch
-
See Houchins v. KQEDSearch
-
Jones v. NorthSearch
-
Morales v. SchmidtSearch
-
Harris v. PateSearch
-
F.2d 315 (CA7 1971). Cf. Meachum v. FanoSearch
-
Procunier v. NavaretteSearch
-
See Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
United States v. CullenSearch
-
Brief for United States 27. See Furtado v. BishopSearch
-
F.2d 80 (CA1 1979), cert. denied, post, p. 1035. Cf. Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. GambleSearch
-
violence and brutality inflicted by prison guards upon inmates violates the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., Jackson v. BishopSearch
-
F.2d 571 (CA8 1968). The reasons that support the Court's holding in Estelle v. GambleSearch
-
means that the burden of proof is on the Government to prove that element. According to our precedents, e.g., Mullane v. WilburSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial