Citation network
Ratzlaf Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 11, 1994
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
-
Ratzlaf v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 510 U.S. 135 (1994) October Term, 1993 Syllabus Ratzlaf Et Ux. V. UnitedSearch
-
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as amicus curiae urging reversal. 1 Compare, e. g., United States v. ScanioSearch
-
s willfulness requirement), with United States v. AversaSearch
-
be heightened when the words describe an element of a criminal offense. See Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare v. DavenportSearch
-
cf. Potter v. UnitedSearch
-
Spies v. UnitedSearch
-
See United States v. BankSearch
-
United States v. EisensteinSearch
-
s knowledge of the reporting requirement and his specific intent to commit the crime''') (quoting United States v. GrandaSearch
-
See, e. g., United States v. SturmanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty''') (quoting Cheek v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. WarrenSearch
-
United States v. DichneSearch
-
be negated by, e. g., proof that defendant relied in good faith on advice of counsel. See United States v. EisensteinSearch
-
in several places in a statutory text is generally read the same way each time it appears. See Estate of Cowart v. NicklosSearch
-
a), the same way each time it is called into play. See United States v. AversaSearch
-
has been adopted, it has been invoked only to ensure that the defendant acted with a wrongful purpose. See Liparota v. UnitedSearch
-
the United States asserts. Id., at 29 (quoting United States v. HoylandSearch
-
United States v. AversaSearch
-
example, absent special exemption, would be subject to prosecution. Tr. of Oral Arg. 32-34. 13See United States v. DollarSearch
-
But the legislative history cited by the United States is hardly crystalline. The reference to United States v. Tobon-BuilesSearch
-
we would resolve any doubt in favor of the defendant. Hughey v. UnitedSearch
-
Crandon v. UnitedSearch
-
the subsection under which Ratzlaf was convicted, is not evident. 18 See Barnhill v. JohnsonSearch
-
appeals to legislative history are well taken only to resolve statutory ambiguity). See also United States v. AversaSearch
-
text is ambiguous''') (quoting Wong Yang Sung v. McGrathSearch
-
intent at any time, and it surely affords no reliable guide to Congress' intent in 1986. See Oscar Mayer & Co. v. EvansSearch
-
quoting McBoyle v. UnitedSearch
-
not dishonor the venerable principle that ignorance of the law generally is no defense to a criminal charge. See Cheek v. UnitedSearch
-
Barlow v. UnitedSearch
-
knowledge on defendant's part by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence of defendant's conduct, see Spies v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. BankSearch
-
or 5316. See, e. g., United States v. DichneSearch
-
Cheek v. UnitedSearch
-
Ibid., citing United States v. InternationalSearch
-
Hamling v. UnitedSearch
-
and Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
see also Browder v. UnitedSearch
-
Potter v. UnitedSearch
-
American Surety Co. of New York v. SullivanSearch
-
requirement superfluous. See ante, at 140. This argument ignores the general- 3 See United States v. ScanioSearch
-
United States v. ShirkSearch
-
United States v. RogersSearch
-
United States v. BeaumontSearch
-
United States v. BaydounSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial