Kavoukian v. Kaletta

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “noscitur a sociis does not apply” to subsection (A)(iv) because “[e]ncourage and induce are not part of a series of words that shed additional light on their meaning”
• finding Sineneng-Smith “persuasive on the overbreadth issue” and merely “add[ing] . . . thoughts reinforcing that conclusion of overbreadth”
• rejecting government’s interpretation of subsection (A)(iv) as aiding-and-abetting statute in part because “the elements necessary for an aiding[-]and[-]abetting conviction . . . require that the government prove elements not contained in subsection[A](iv)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).