Citation network
Bryan Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 15, 1998
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
-
Bryan v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 524 U.S. 184 (1998) October Term, 1997 Syllabus Bryan V. UnitedSearch
-
See, e. g., Heikkinen v. UnitedSearch
-
of the facts constituting the offense, as distinguished from knowledge of the law, see, e. g., United States v. BaileySearch
-
s adoption of a similar interpretation in cases concerned with willful violations of the tax laws, see, e. g., Cheek v. UnitedSearch
-
assistance, since his main support lies in statements made by opponents of the bill. See, e. g., Schwegmann Brothers v. CalvertSearch
-
for the Government to prove that the defendant acted with knowledge of the licensing requirement, United States v. Sanchez-CorcinoSearch
-
App. 17 (citing Ratzlaf v. UnitedSearch
-
whose construction is often dependent on the context in which it appears. See, e. g., Spies v. UnitedSearch
-
but in the criminal law it also typically refers to a culpable state of mind. As we explained in United States v. MurdockSearch
-
from accidental. But when used in a criminal statute it generally means an act done with a bad purpose (Felton v. UnitedSearch
-
Potter v. UnitedSearch
-
Spurr v. UnitedSearch
-
without justifiable excuse (Felton v. UnitedSearch
-
Williams v. PeopleSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
People v. JewellSearch
-
St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. BatesvilleSearch
-
Clay v. StateSearch
-
stubbornly, obstinately, perversely, Wales v. MinerSearch
-
Lynch v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Claus v. ChicagoSearch
-
State v. HarwellSearch
-
S. E. 48. The word is also employed to characterize a thing done without ground for believing it is lawful (Roby v. NewtonSearch
-
S. E. 694), or conduct marked by careless disregard whether or not one has the right so to act, United States v. PhiladelphiaSearch
-
State v. SavreSearch
-
State v. MorganSearch
-
U. S., at 394-395. 13 See, e. g., Heikkinen v. UnitedSearch
-
Felton v. UnitedSearch
-
Ratzlaf v. UnitedSearch
-
only if it finds that it knew the meaning of the regulation he was accused of violating. With the exception of Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
I do not suppose the Court intends to suggest that if petitioner knew nothing of the existence 193 States v. BaileySearch
-
Id., at 408. And in Staples v. UnitedSearch
-
at 602. It was not, however, necessary to prove that the defendant knew that his possession was unlawful. See Rogers v. UnitedSearch
-
Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 342 U. S. 337 , 345 (1952). 15 Liparota v. UnitedSearch
-
s translation of the terms mens rea and actus reus is found in his opinion for the Court in Morissette v. UnitedSearch
-
was aware of the specific provision of the tax code that he was charged with violating. See, e. g., Cheek v. UnitedSearch
-
these statutes 17 Even in tax cases, we have not always required this heightened mens rea. In United States v. PomponioSearch
-
Id., at 13. 18 As we stated in Cheek v. UnitedSearch
-
See Bates v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 346 , 360-361 (1973) (quoting Spies v. UnitedSearch
-
of criminally prosecuting individuals who subjectively and honestly believe they have not acted criminally. Cheek v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. AversaSearch
-
Schwegmann Brothers v. CalvertSearch
-
NLRB v. FruitSearch
-
see also United States v. AndradeSearch
-
thus, while these 26 See, e. g., Perri v. DepartmentSearch
-
Stein's Inc. v. BlumenthalSearch
-
Syllabus Bryan V. UnitedSearch
-
Heikkinen v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial