Citation network
United States Vs. Harriss
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 07, 1954
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 612 (1954) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. HarrissSearch
-
U.S. 612 (1954) United States v. HarrissSearch
-
Relying on its previous Page 347 U. S. 614 decision in National Association of Manufacturers v. McGrathSearch
-
In making this decision, we judge the statute on its face. See United States v. PetrilloSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
will not be struck down as vague, even though marginal cases could be put where doubts might arise. United States v. PetrilloSearch
-
the statute, this Court is under a duty to give the statute that construction. This was the course adopted in Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
a) and (b). As in United States v. RumelySearch
-
passing the Federal Corrupt Practices Act -- to maintain the integrity of a basic governmental process. See Burroughs v. UnitedSearch
-
and it will never be so applied if the appellees are found innocent of the charges against them. See United States v. WurzbachSearch
-
b), if this should ever prove necessary. Compare Electric Bond & Share Co. v. SecuritiesSearch
-
See United States v. PetrilloSearch
-
United States v. BordenSearch
-
Cf. Fox v. WashingtonSearch
-
Winters v. NewSearch
-
fairly possible, must construe congressional enactments so as to avoid a danger of unconstitutionality. United States v. DelawareSearch
-
For illustrative cases applying this criterion, see Sharpe's Estate v. CommissionerSearch
-
Marshall v. CommissionerSearch
-
Faulkner v. CommissionerSearch
-
Huntington National Bank, 13 T.C. 760, 769. Cf. Girard Trust v. CommissionerSearch
-
Leubuscher v. CommissionerSearch
-
Weyl v. CommissionerSearch
-
Slee v. CommissionerSearch
-
as many other criminal statutes which this Court has upheld against a charge of vagueness. E.g., Boyce Motor Lines v. UnitedSearch
-
Dennis v. UnitedSearch
-
Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 325 U. S. 91 , and Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
Nash v. UnitedSearch
-
statute, but yet was sustained because of the national interest in a nonpolitical civil service. United Public Workers v. MitchellSearch
-
of speech, assembly, and press. We deal here with the validity of a criminal statute. To use the test of Connally v. GeneralSearch
-
vague, as I think this one is, then it fails to meet the standards required by due process of law. See United States v. PetrilloSearch
-
U. S. 1 . In determining that question, we consider the statute on its face. As stated in Lanzetta v. NewSearch
-
Winters v. NewSearch
-
That would pose a considerable question under the First Amendment, as Thomas v. CollinsSearch
-
Cantwell v. ConnecticutSearch
-
be cast in such vague and indefinite terms as to cast a cloud on the exercise of constitutional rights. Cf. Stromberg v. CaliforniaSearch
-
to read a statute with the gloss a court has placed on it in order to save it from the charge of vagueness. See Fox v. WashingtonSearch
-
the vague standards that confronted appellees when they did the acts now charged against them as criminal. Cf. Pierce v. UnitedSearch
-
by admittedly changing repeated and long established constitutional and statutory interpretations. United States v. South-EasternSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. HarrissSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial