Citation network
United States Vs. Wells
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 04, 1996
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. 482 (1996) October Term, 1996 Syllabus United States V. WellsSearch
-
the court treated their statements as material, and they appealed. This Court then decided, in United States v. GaudinSearch
-
Kungys v. UnitedSearch
-
the first criterion in the statutory interpretation hierarchy, a natural reading of the full text, see United States v. AmericanSearch
-
See, e. g., Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. DardenSearch
-
after Kay v. UnitedSearch
-
the statements as material, and respondents appealed. While the appeal was pending, we decided United States v. GaudinSearch
-
Most, but not all, of the Federal Courts of Appeals have held that materiality is an element. Compare United States v. LopezSearch
-
United States v. BonnetteSearch
-
United States v. ThompsonSearch
-
United States v. SpearsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
United States v. StaniforthSearch
-
Theron v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. HaddockSearch
-
United States v. RappSearch
-
doctrine precludes the Government from denying on appeal that the crime includes the element. See United States v. KillipSearch
-
F.2d 1542 , 1547-1548 (CAlO), cert. denied sub nom. Krout v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. TapioSearch
-
United States v. SpletzerSearch
-
with United States v. ClearySearch
-
F.2d 43 , 46 (CA2 1977) (concluding that materiality is not an element), cert. denied sub nom. Passarelli v. UnitedSearch
-
F.2d 125 , 129 (CA6) (quoting Harvis v. RoadwaySearch
-
by the Court of Appeals, United States v. WilliamsSearch
-
of several considerations bearing on whether to decide a question on which we granted certiorari. 5 See Springfield v. KibbeSearch
-
the Government to the position it adopted in the indictment. See Brief for Respondents 14-16 (citing United States v. NorbergSearch
-
that court's contrary ruling. 6 In Springfield v. KibbeSearch
-
United States v. RibasteSearch
-
United States v. McKnightSearch
-
F.2d 388 , 389 (1985), and had treated this issue as one for the judge, not the jury, see United States v. RibasteSearch
-
had not explicitly raised that related issue in its certiorari petition, id., at 258-260. See also United States v. WilliamsSearch
-
see also United States v. GaudinSearch
-
U. S., at 509.7 We begin with the text. See Community for Creative Non- Violence v. ReidSearch
-
carries no general suggestion of influential significance, see Kungys v. UnitedSearch
-
cf. Kay v. UnitedSearch
-
Thus, under the first criterion in the interpretive hierarchy, a natural reading of the full text, see United States v. AmericanSearch
-
here also appears to have understood materiality to have this meaning. See 63 F. 3d, at 750 (relying on United States v. AdlerSearch
-
U. S. 318 , 322 (1992) (quoting Community for Creative Non-Violence v. ReidSearch
-
the dissent's conclusion under the ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis canons. 10 Nor does Fedorenko v. UnitedSearch
-
facts, 449 U. S., at 507-508, and n. 28. The dissent argues we should reach a similar conclusion here, because Kungys v. UnitedSearch
-
materiality requirements and lost them in the course of consolidationP See Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
See United States v. ShabaniSearch
-
This, of course, is contrary to our presumption that each term in a criminal statute carries meaning. See Bailey v. UnitedSearch
-
see n. 12, supra, and thus could have included a materiality element implicitly, see Kungys v. UnitedSearch
-
been held to imply materiality), the remaining 11 would not have, as was clear from the opinion of the Court in Kay v. UnitedSearch
-
the Government to prove that false statements actually influenced the decisionmaker, see, e. g., United States v. GobermanSearch
-
Syllabus United States V. WellsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial