Moskal v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that \differences in judicial interpretation of a statute\ do not prove \the statute's ambiguity\
• holding that the rule of lenity is not triggered because it is “possible to articulate” a narrower construction of a statute
• holding that the rule of lenity is not triggered because it is “possible to articulate” a narrower construction of a statute
• holding that a motor vehicle title duly issued by a state, but containing an apocryphal mileage figure, can be considered “falsely made” within the contemplation of an analogous criminal statute
• recognizing that words are to be given their ordinary meaning, in context of the statute overall
• holding that the rule of lenity is not triggered because it is “possible to articulate” a narrower construction of a statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Moskal v. United States

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Moskal v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1990-03-19
• Moskal v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1990-03-19