Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Williams Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 29, 1982

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

63 entries 8 linked 55 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Enmons US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1973
  2. United States Vs. Edwards US Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1974
  3. United States Vs. Bass US Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1971
  4. United States Vs. Turkette US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1981
  5. United States Vs. Naftalin US Supreme Court · May 21, 1979
  6. United States Vs. Culbert US Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1978
  7. United States Vs. Gaskin US Supreme Court · Jan 03, 1944
  8. United States Vs. Giordano US Supreme Court · May 13, 1974
  9. Williams v. United
    Search
  10. States - 458 U.S. 279 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Williams v. United
    Search
  11. States, 458 U.S. 279 (1982) Williams v. United
    Search
  12. F.2d 1311, 1319 (CA5 1981). In line with its earlier decision in United States v. Payne
    Search
  13. Brief for United States 19. See United States v. Payne
    Search
  14. United States v. Krown
    Search
  15. loans, and neither of those two organizations accepted checks for deposit from private customers. See United States v. Sabatino
    Search
  16. U. S. 336 , 404 U. S. 347 (1971), quoting United States v. Universal
    Search
  17. deposit of bad checks. United States v. Enmons
    Search
  18. See United States v. Sher
    Search
  19. does not proscribe check-kiting). Cf. United States v. Krown
    Search
  20. U. S. 576 , 452 U. S. 580 (1981) (quoting Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v. GTE
    Search
  21. U. S. 294 deceptive schemes that might impair the financial stability of these institutions. Cf. United States v. Naftalin
    Search
  22. United States v. Pinto
    Search
  23. F.2d 833, 838 (CA3) (quoting United States v. Stoddart
    Search
  24. broad language does not lend itself to the restrictive interpretation endorsed by the Court today. Cf. United States v. Culbert
    Search
  25. to a particular kind of transaction. United States v. Culbert
    Search
  26. description. This method of statutory construction was Page 458 U. S. 295 rejected recently in Harrison v. PPG
    Search
  27. and thus violates the statute. See, e.g., United States v. Greene
    Search
  28. See United States v. Calandrella
    Search
  29. F.2d 236 (CA6), cert. denied sub nom. Kaye v. United
    Search
  30. within the ordinary meaning of these terms. See, e.g., United States v. Payne
    Search
  31. United States v. Street
    Search
  32. clear indications in the legislative history that Congress did not intend to proscribe this conduct. See United States v. Turkette
    Search
  33. be given its narrowest meaning by limiting its scope to effectuate only its primary purpose. See, e.g., United States v. Turkette
    Search
  34. United States v. Moore
    Search
  35. we addressed similar arguments raised by persons convicted under broad federal statutes. See, e.g., United States v. Turkette
    Search
  36. Rubin v. United
    Search
  37. United States v. Turkette
    Search
  38. to give it a meaning contradictory to the fair import of the whole remaining language. As was said in United States v. Gaskin
    Search
  39. United States v. Brown
    Search
  40. U. S. 18 , 333 U. S. 25 -26 (1948) (quoted in United States v. Turkette
    Search
  41. supra, at 452 U. S. 588 , n. 10, and United States v. Moore
    Search
  42. that, in this case, none of the general justifications for applying the rule of lenity are present. In Huddleston v. United
    Search
  43. that check-kiting is subject to federal prosecution under the mail and wire fraud statutes, see, e.g., United States v. Giordano
    Search
  44. United States v. Constant
    Search
  45. is consistent with this scheme. See, e.g., United States v. Bush
    Search
  46. United States v. Stoddart
    Search
  47. Rather, it complements state law enforcement in an area where the federal interest is substantial. See United States v. Turkette
    Search
  48. U.S. Supreme Court Williams v. United
    Search
  49. See United States v. Payne
    Search
  50. See United States v. Sabatino
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial