in Re Herman Lee Kindred

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that that “[a] general intent reading of § 46504, which still requires that a defendant’s conduct be voluntary and deliberate, readily satisfies Elonis’[s] mens rea standard.”
• reasoning that Johnson requires a \full vagueness analysis\ looking at defendant's particular circumstances
• construing Johnson to require “full vagueness analysis” and concluding that persons of ordinary intelligence could understand what was prohibited by criminal statute
• rejecting argument that statute implicitly required specific intent, explaining that “[a] general intent reading . . . still requires that a defendant’s conduct be voluntary and deliberate” and satisfies the purpose of a scienter requirement
• reading a criminal statute silent on the required mental state “as a general intent statute” requiring only that the act “be done voluntarily and intentionally, and not because of mistake or accident” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• reading a general intent mens rea into 49 U.S.C. § 46504

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).