Supreme Court· 4/5/1971
Rewis v. United States
Citations
- 401 U.S. 808
- 91 S. Ct. 1056
- 28 L. Ed. 2d 493
- 1971 U.S. LEXIS 60
- 27 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1006
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the “ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity”
- holding that ambiguity in criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity
- observing that “ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity”
- emphasizing that “ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity”
- explaining that the rule of lenity dictates that “ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity [to the defendant].”
- explaining that the rule of lenity dictates that \ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity [to the defendant].\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Marshall, White
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
492 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- United States v. LopezSupreme Court· 1995-04-26· cited 3,052×
- Whalen v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1980-04-16· cited 1,789×
- United States v. BassSupreme Court· 1971-12-20· cited 1,739×
- United States v. BatchelderSupreme Court· 1979-06-04· cited 1,568×
- Perrin v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1979-11-27· cited 1,399×
- McNally v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1987-06-24· cited 1,314×
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court· 1978-06-29· cited 1,267×
- Chiarella v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1980-03-18· cited 1,089×
- Skilling v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2010-06-24· cited 987×
- Tanner v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1987-06-22· cited 915×
- Liparota v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1985-05-13· cited 890×
- United States v. FeolaSupreme Court· 1975-03-19· cited 856×
- Lewis v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1980-02-27· cited 843×
- United States v. Nelson BellFifth Circuit· 1982-06-01· cited 819×
- Moskal v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1990-12-03· cited 742×
- United States v. AlbertiniSupreme Court· 1985-06-24· cited 731×
- Bryan v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1998-06-15· cited 683×
- Simpson v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1978-02-28· cited 656×
- Jones v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2000-05-22· cited 626×
- Busic v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1980-05-19· cited 597×
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Bell v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1955-05-09· cited 1,300×
- Marchetti v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1968-01-29· cited 1,283×
- Grosso v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1968-01-29· cited 947×
- United States v. George Barrow, Benny Bonanno, Fred Dipatrizio, Joseph Mattia and Pasquale PilloThird Circuit· 1966-08-30· cited 92×
- United States v. Edward H. ChambersSixth Circuit· 1967-09-29· cited 70×
- United States v. Frank Nick Zizzo, Alexander Stasnick, Hugo A. Lazzareschi and WalterwojciechowskiSeventh Circuit· 1964-12-16· cited 65×
Other cases named Rewis v. United States
11 other CourtListener records share this case name.
- Rewis v. United StatesFifth Circuit· 1966-12-05· cited 20×
- Rewis v. United StatesFifth Circuit· 1969-12-05· cited 16×
- Rewis v. United StatesFifth Circuit· 1971-07-02· cited 12×
- Rewis v. United StatesFifth Circuit· 1974-11-18· cited 10×
- Rewis v. United StatesS.D. Georgia· 1969-09-26· cited 3×
- Rewis v. United StatesFifth Circuit· 1966-12-05· cited 1×
- Rewis v. United StatesFifth Circuit· 1975-01-27· cited 1×
- Rewis v. United StatesFifth Circuit· 1971-07-02
- Rewis v. United StatesFifth Circuit· 1975-01-27
- Rewis v. United StatesFifth Circuit· 1975-01-27
- Rewis v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1970-10-12
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.