Supreme Court· 3/31/1997

United States v. Lanier

Citations

520 U.S. 259
117 S. Ct. 1219
137 L. Ed. 2d 432
1997 U.S. LEXIS 2079

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 “touchstone” of the due-process inquiry “is whether the statute, either standing alone or as construed ” provided fair notice (emphasis added)
holding that criminal liability for deprivation of a constitutional right under § 242 requires that the unlawfulness be apparent under pre-exist-ing law
holding that the rule of lenity \ensures fair warning by so resolving ambiguity in a criminal statute as to apply it only to conduct clearly covered\
holding that the rule of lenity \ensures fair warning by so resolving ambiguity in a criminal statute as to apply it only to conduct clearly covered\
holding that the rule of lenity \ensures fair warning by so resolving ambiguity in a criminal statute as to apply it only to conduct clearly covered\
holding that the Supreme Court is not the only source for defining an established constitutional right in determining whether the defendant had notice that his actions -violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Souter

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1,125 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

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

Other cases named United States v. Lanier

20 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.