Citation network
Burns Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 13, 1991
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
-
Burns v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 501 U.S. 129 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Burns v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 501 U.S. 129 (1991) Burns v. UnitedSearch
-
give affected individuals both notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See, e.g., American Power & Light Co. v. SECSearch
-
in this setting absent a clear statement of congressional intent to that effect. See, e.g., Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. FloridaSearch
-
the manner in which district courts sentence persons convicted of federal crimes. See generally Mistretta v. UnitedSearch
-
State of Illinois Dept. of Public Aid v. SchweikerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
that a decision is contemplated. Mullane v. CentralSearch
-
would thus render what Congress has expressly said absurd. Cf. Green v. BockSearch
-
notice Page 501 U. S. 138 and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See American Power & Light Co. v. SECSearch
-
The Court has likewise inferred other statutory protections essential to assuring procedural fairness. See Kent v. UnitedSearch
-
notice to the defendant, we decline to impute such an intention to Congress. See, e.g., Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. FloridaSearch
-
United States v. PaltaSearch
-
United States v. Nuno-ParaSearch
-
United States v. OteroSearch
-
West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. CaseySearch
-
U. S. 83 , 499 U. S. 101 (1991), quoting Iselin v. UnitedSearch
-
on the pre-departure notice at issue here bespeaks no intent that notice be given. See, e.g., General Motors Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. SoliminoSearch
-
Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. FloridaSearch
-
protection, such as the expectancy that we found to have been created by the Nebraska statute at issue in Greenholtz v. InmatesSearch
-
Cleveland Bd. of Ed v. LoudermillSearch
-
supra, 408 U.S. at 408 U. S. 481 . The methodology for assessing those demands was the subject of Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
bases for denying parole was a mere issue of historical fact. See id. at 442 U. S. 11 . In Ingraham v. WrightSearch
-
and one only. There is, rather, a spectrum of sentences that are arguably appropriate or reasonable, cf. Wasman v. UnitedSearch
-
such notice is not, in practice, necessary to reduce the risk of serving erroneous sentences. Cf. Dixon v. LoveSearch
-
review is appropriate. See United States v. Diaz-VillafaneSearch
-
United States v. ChesterSearch
-
United States v. RodriguezSearch
-
United States v. WilliamsSearch
-
United States v. WhitehorseSearch
-
United States v. SingletonSearch
-
United States v. DeanSearch
-
United States v. RussellSearch
-
United States v. MurilloSearch
-
Walters v. NationalSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Burns v. UnitedSearch
-
American Power & Light Co. v. SECSearch
-
Mistretta v. UnitedSearch
-
Mullane v. CentralSearch
-
Cf. Green v. BockSearch
-
See American Power & Light Co. v. SECSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial