Citation network
United States Vs. Lanier
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 31, 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
-
U.S. 259 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus United States V. LanierSearch
-
covers simple or sexual assault crimes. Invoking general interpretive canons and Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
McBoyle v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
see Anderson v. UnitedSearch
-
and Bivens v. SixSearch
-
Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, see, e. g., Mitchell v. ForsythSearch
-
decisions gave reasonable warning that the conduct at issue violated constitutional rights. See, e. g., United States v. GuestSearch
-
Invoking general canons for interpreting criminal statutes, as well as this Court's plurality opinion in Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
conduct it forbids, each statute's general terms incorporate constitutional law by reference, see United States v. KozminskiSearch
-
Bouie v. CitySearch
-
of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347, 351 (1964) (quoting United States v. HarrissSearch
-
deference due to the legislature, which possesses the power to define crimes and their punishment. See United States v. WiltbergerSearch
-
Connally v. GeneralSearch
-
accord, Kolender v. LawsonSearch
-
Lanzetta v. NewSearch
-
by so resolving ambiguity in a criminal statute as to apply it only to conduct clearly covered. See, e. g., Liparota v. UnitedSearch
-
neither the statute nor any prior judicial decision has fairly disclosed to be within its scope, see, e. g., Marks v. UnitedSearch
-
Bouie, supra, at 353-354 (Ex Post Facto States v. AguilarSearch
-
clear at the relevant time that the defendant's conduct was criminal. We applied this standard in Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
case has held that the universe of relevant interpretive decisions is confined to our opinions. While United States v. KozminskiSearch
-
Huddleston v. UnitedSearch
-
not from the assertions of codifiers directly at odds with clear statutory language. See, e. g., United States v. WellsSearch
-
liability, see Anderson v. UnitedSearch
-
See Mitchell v. ForsythSearch
-
decisions gave reasonable warning that the conduct then at issue violated constitutional rights. See United States v. GuestSearch
-
or Bivens, see Anderson v. CreightonSearch
-
of conduct at issue, a very high degree of prior factual particularity may be necessary. See, e. g., Mitchell v. ForsythSearch
-
F. 3d, at 1410 (quoting K. H. Through Murphy v. MorganSearch
-
see also Colten v. KentuckySearch
-
Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
is contradicted by the language of Screws itself as well as later cases. See Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
Amendment and encompasses violations of rights guaranteed under the Due Process Clause). Second, although DeShaney v. WinnebagoSearch
-
committed by state officials themselves outside of a custodial setting. Third, contrary to respondent's claim, Graham v. ConnorSearch
-
Syllabus United States V. LanierSearch
-
and Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
Anderson v. UnitedSearch
-
Mitchell v. ForsythSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial