United States v. Weintraub

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 phrase ‘knowingly violates’ requires knowledge of facts and attendant circumstances that comprise a violation of the statute, not specific knowledge that one’s conduct is illegal.”
• holding that in the context of asbestos regulations under the Clean Air Act, “the phrase ‘knowingly violates’ requires knowledge of facts and attendant circumstances that comprise a violation of the statute, not specific knowledge that one’s conduct is illegal”
• explaining that a reviewing court “typically will not find [plain] error where the operative legal question is unsettled” (quotation marks and citation omitted)
• “For an error to be plain, it must, at a minimum, be clear under current law.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “A reviewing court typically will not find such error where the operative legal question is unsettled.”
• “For an error to be plain, it must, at a minimum, be clear under current law.” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).