Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Salinas Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Oct 08, 1997

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

80 entries 11 linked 69 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Albertini US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1985
  2. United States Vs. Raynor US Supreme Court · Jan 03, 1938
  3. United States Vs. Holte US Supreme Court · Feb 01, 1915
  4. Gregory Vs. Ashcroft US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1991
  5. Seminole Tribe of FlA. Vs. Florida US Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1995
  6. United States Vs. Shabani US Supreme Court · Oct 03, 1994
  7. Ardestani Vs. Ins US Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1991
  8. United States Vs. Mosley US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1915
  9. Heckler Vs. Mathews US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1984
  10. United States Vs. Lopez US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1995
  11. United States Vs. Rabinowich US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1915
  12. Salinas v. United
    Search
  13. States - 522 U.S. 52 (1997) October Term, 1997 Syllabus Salinas V. United
    Search
  14. statute's plain and unambiguous meaning, petitioner is not aided by the legislative history, see, e. g., United States v. Albertini
    Search
  15. U. S. 675 , 680, or by the plain-statement rule set forth in Gregory v. Ashcroft
    Search
  16. U. S. 452 , 460-461, and McNally v. United
    Search
  17. States, 483 U. S. 350 , 360, see, e. g., Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida
    Search
  18. a threat to the integrity and proper operation of the federal program under which the jail was managed. See Westfall v. United
    Search
  19. phrase to have its ordinary meaning under the criminal law, see Morissette v. United
    Search
  20. c) violates the foregoing principles and is refuted by Bannon v. United
    Search
  21. States, 156 U. S. 464 , 469. Its acceptance, moreover, is not required by the rule of lenity, see United States v. Shabani
    Search
  22. count and the bribery counts. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, United States v. Marmolejo
    Search
  23. the business or transaction clause, undercuts the attempt to impose this narrowing construction. See United States v. James
    Search
  24. Trainmen v. Baltimore
    Search
  25. U. S. 675 , 680 (1985) (citations 58 omitted) (quoting Garcia v. United
    Search
  26. see also Ardestani v. INS
    Search
  27. a). Compare United States v. Del
    Search
  28. Toro, 513 F.2d 656 , 661-662 (CA2), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 826 (1975), with United States v. Mosley
    Search
  29. F.2d 812 , 814-816 (CA7 1981), and United States v. Hinton
    Search
  30. F. 2d 195, 197-200 (CA7 1982), aff'd sub nom. Dixson v. United
    Search
  31. to satisfy whatever connection the statute might require. Salinas argues in addition that our decisions in Gregory v. Ashcroft
    Search
  32. U. S. 452 (1991), and McNally v. United
    Search
  33. canon is not a license 60 for the judiciary to rewrite language enacted by the legislature. Heckler v. Mathews
    Search
  34. of the Constitution. United States v. Locke
    Search
  35. proper respect to the federalstate balance. As we observed in applying an analogous maxim in Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida
    Search
  36. that the statute encompasses the conduct at issue. Ibid. Compare United States v. Bass
    Search
  37. to construe an ambiguous firearm-possession statute to apply only to firearms affecting commerce), with United States v. Lopez
    Search
  38. a)(1)(B) to Salinas did not extend federal power beyond its proper bounds. See Westfall v. United
    Search
  39. visits, because that question is not fairly included within the questions on which we granted certiorari. See Yee v. Escondido
    Search
  40. provision, the defendant must himself commit or agree to commit two or more predicate acts. See United States v. Sanders
    Search
  41. United States v. Ruggiero
    Search
  42. F. 2d 913, 921 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. Rabito v. United
    Search
  43. United States v. Winter
    Search
  44. Eight other Courts of Appeals, including the Fifth Circuit in this case, take a contrary view. See United States v. Pryba
    Search
  45. United States v. Kragness
    Search
  46. United States v. Neapolitan
    Search
  47. United States v. Joseph
    Search
  48. United States v. Adams
    Search
  49. United States v. Tille
    Search
  50. F.2d 1514 , 1529-1531 (CAll), cert. denied sub nom. Morris v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial