§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. GREWAL

Appellant, John C. Stidman, Reply Brief on the Merits

31 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Lanier

    520 U.S. 259 (1997)   Cited 2,391 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should look to prior judicial decisions interpreting a statute in considering whether it is vague

  2. Kolender v. Lawson

    461 U.S. 352 (1983)   Cited 3,035 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding state misdemeanor statute unconstitutionally vague within the meaning of the Due Process Clause

  3. Marks v. United States

    430 U.S. 188 (1977)   Cited 2,097 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that due process is violated if the trial court instructs the jury based on the current interpretation of a statute, rather than the interpretation that controlled at the time of the allegedly criminal acts

  4. Equilon Enterprises, Llc. v. Consumer Cause, Inc.

    29 Cal.4th 53 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,786 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fee shifting under the Anti-SLAPP statute without a showing of the plaintiff's "intent to chill" free speech did not violate the Constitution or "inappropriately punish plaintiffs," especially given that a plaintiff is burdened by payment of attorney fees "only when the plaintiff burdens free speech with an unsubstantiated claim"

  5. United States v. Bass

    404 U.S. 336 (1971)   Cited 1,265 times
    Holding § 922(g)'s predecessor constitutional in light of the jurisdictional element

  6. Bouie v. City of Columbia

    378 U.S. 347 (1964)   Cited 1,495 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that extending South Carolina's trespassing statute to remaining on another's property after being asked to leave was inconsistent with the law's text barring only "entry" upon another's property

  7. Liparota v. United States

    471 U.S. 419 (1985)   Cited 641 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Government is not required to "introduce any extraordinary evidence that would conclusively demonstrate petitioner's state of mind .... [but rather] may prove [the defendant's knowledge] by reference to facts and circumstances surrounding the case"

  8. Connally v. General Const. Co.

    269 U.S. 385 (1926)   Cited 2,758 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a statute violates due process for vagueness if “men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application”

  9. Lanzetta v. New Jersey

    306 U.S. 451 (1939)   Cited 1,119 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding statute unconstitutionally vague for failure to condemn a specific act or omission

  10. LaGrand v. Stewart

    133 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 361 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that counsel's "reasonable strategic decision" do not "constitute ineffective assistance"

  11. Section 9 - Powers Denied to Congress

    U.S. Const. art. I, § 9   Cited 2,770 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting Congress