United States v. Lanier

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).