Supreme Court· 2/27/1990

Crandon v. United States

Citations

494 U.S. 152
110 S. Ct. 997
108 L. Ed. 2d 132
1990 U.S. LEXIS 1173

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that meaning of statute is to be determined from design of statute as whole and its object and policy, in addition to its language
noting that where the governing standard in a civil action is set forth in a criminal statute, the rule of lenity applies
stating that the rule of lenity “serves to ensure that there is fair warning of the boundaries of criminal conduct and that legislatures, not courts, define criminal liability”
noting that a court should “look not only to the particular statutory language, but to the design of the statute as a whole and to its object and policy”
stating that the rule of lenity serves to ensure that there is fair warning of the boundaries of criminal conduct
stating that the rule of lenity “serves to ensure that there is fair warning of the boundaries of criminal conduct and that legislatures, not courts, define criminal liability”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Stevens, Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, O'Con-Nor, Kennedy, O'Connor

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

523 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Crandon v. United States

12 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.