Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Taylor Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 29, 1990

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

43 entries 3 linked 40 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Turley US Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1957
  2. United States Vs. Nardello US Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1969
  3. ins Vs. Cardoza-fonseca US Supreme Court · Mar 09, 1987
  4. Taylor v. United
    Search
  5. States - 495 U.S. 575 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Taylor v. United
    Search
  6. States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) Taylor v. United
    Search
  7. have some uniform definition independent of the labels used by the various States' criminal codes. Cf. United States v. Nardello
    Search
  8. his sentence. 864 F.2d 625, 627 (1989). The majority relied on their court's earlier decision in United States v. Portwood
    Search
  9. the criminal codes of the States define burglary in many different ways. See United States v. Hill
    Search
  10. roughly corresponding to the definitions of burglary in a majority of the States' criminal codes. See United States v. Hill
    Search
  11. the omission of a preexisting definition of a term often indicates Congress' intent to reject that definition, see INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca
    Search
  12. Russello v. United
    Search
  13. United States v. Chatman
    Search
  14. United States v. Leonard
    Search
  15. in a way that leads to odd results of this kind. See Dickerson v. New
    Search
  16. relying on the maxim that a statutory term is generally presumed to have its common law meaning. See Morissette v. United
    Search
  17. when that meaning is obsolete or inconsistent with the statute's purpose. Page 495 U. S. 595 In Perrin v. United
    Search
  18. Id. at 49. Similarly, in United States v. Nardello
    Search
  19. Id. at 393 U. S. 296 . See also Bell v. United
    Search
  20. that criminal statutes, including sentencing provisions, are to be construed in favor of the accused. See Bifulco v. United
    Search
  21. Simpson v. United
    Search
  22. interpretation of a statute, nor one at odds with the generally accepted contemporary meaning of a term. See Perrin v. United
    Search
  23. definitions of the prior offenses, and not to the particular facts underlying those convictions. See United States v. Chatman
    Search
  24. United States v. Headspeth
    Search
  25. United States v. Vidaure
    Search
  26. United States v. Sherbondy
    Search
  27. United States v. Leonard
    Search
  28. United States v. Taylor
    Search
  29. United States v. Dombrowski
    Search
  30. United States v. Hill
    Search
  31. and United States v. Patterson
    Search
  32. U.S. Supreme Court Taylor v. United
    Search
  33. Cf. United States v. Nardello
    Search
  34. United States v. Portwood
    Search
  35. See United States v. Hill
    Search
  36. See Dickerson v. New
    Search
  37. See Morissette v. United
    Search
  38. In Perrin v. United
    Search
  39. Bell v. United
    Search
  40. See Bifulco v. United
    Search
  41. See Perrin v. United
    Search
  42. See United States v. Chatman
    Search
  43. United States v. Palmer
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial