Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Albertini

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 24, 1985

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

67 entries 8 linked 59 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Grace US Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1983
  2. United States Vs. Turkette US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1981
  3. Cafeteria Workers Vs. Mcelroy US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1961
  4. United States Vs. Kirby US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1868
  5. Wilson Vs. Garcia US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1985
  6. Greer Vs. Spock US Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1976
  7. Crowell Vs. Benson US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1932
  8. Heckler Vs. Mathews US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1984
  9. U.S. 675 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Albertini
    Search
  10. U.S. 675 (1985) United States v. Albertini
    Search
  11. by his reentry during the open house. Flower v. United
    Search
  12. Greer v. Spock
    Search
  13. U. S. 171 , 461 U. S. 175 -176 (1983), quoting Crowell v. Benson
    Search
  14. in applying criminal laws generally must follow the plain and unambiguous meaning of the statutory language. Garcia v. United
    Search
  15. this interpretative canon is not a license for the judiciary to rewrite language enacted by the legislature. Heckler v. Mathews
    Search
  16. of the Constitution. United States v. Locke
    Search
  17. Park 'N Fly v. Dollar
    Search
  18. Cf. Heckler v. Chaney
    Search
  19. barring reentry. This argument misperceives the knowledge required for a violation of the statute. Cf. United States v. Parrilla
    Search
  20. defendant's state of mind, and there is no requirement that the Government prove improper motive or intent. Holdridge v. United
    Search
  21. respondent thought the bar order was no longer effective, he was thereby immunized from prosecution. Cf. United States v. International
    Search
  22. is ordinarily not a public forum for First Amendment purposes even if it is open to the public. See Greer v. Spock
    Search
  23. U. S. 828 (1976). Nonetheless, the court relied on Flower v. United
    Search
  24. not only the right to exclude civilian traffic from the avenue, but also any right to exclude leafleteers. Greer v. Spock
    Search
  25. United States v. Flower
    Search
  26. Page 472 U. S. 686 civilian traffic and any claim of special interest in regulating expression, see Greer v. Spock
    Search
  27. discretion by the base commander to exclude him from the base violates the First Amendment. Cf. Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham
    Search
  28. U.S. at 424 U. S. 836 . See also United States v. Grace
    Search
  29. because the base was used to communicate ideas or information during the open house. United States Postal Service v. Greenburgh
    Search
  30. as government regulation of a traditional public forum simply because an open house was held at Hickam. See Greer v. Spock
    Search
  31. contends that allowing an exception in the particular case will not threaten important government interests. See Clark v. Community
    Search
  32. have entered a military base to see if they will conduct themselves properly during an open house. Cf. Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry
    Search
  33. a claim that he was selectively prosecuted for engaging in activities protected by the First Amendment. Cf. Wayte v. United
    Search
  34. base, this power cannot be exercised in a manner that is patently arbitrary or discriminatory. Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy
    Search
  35. argument proves too much, and the evidentiary arguments prove too little. I In Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy
    Search
  36. United States v. Brown
    Search
  37. injunction that 'ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity,' Rewis v. United
    Search
  38. United States v. United
    Search
  39. Moreover, highways or other public easements often bisect military reservations. Cf. Flower v. United
    Search
  40. The record in Greer v. Spock
    Search
  41. Spock v. David
    Search
  42. Flower v. United
    Search
  43. United States v. Quilty
    Search
  44. United States v. May
    Search
  45. months), cert. denied sub nom. Phipps v. United
    Search
  46. United States v. Douglass
    Search
  47. Government of Canal Zone v. Brooks
    Search
  48. United States v. Jelinski
    Search
  49. Weissman v. United
    Search
  50. Holdridge v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial