Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Jones Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 22, 2000

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

63 entries 3 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Bass US Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1971
  2. United States Vs. Lopez US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1995
  3. Asgrow Seed Co. Vs. Winterboer US Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1995
  4. Jones v. United
    Search
  5. States - 529 U.S. 848 (2000) October Term, 1999 Syllabus Jones V. United
    Search
  6. purposes, and not merely a passive, 849 passing, or past connection to commerce. See, e. g., Bailey v. United
    Search
  7. so far as the record reveals, was for the everyday living of Jones's cousin and his family. Russell v. United
    Search
  8. terms in any setting as surplusage, particularly when the words describe an element of a crime. E. g., Ratzlaf v. United
    Search
  9. such questions are avoided, the Court's duty is to adopt the latter. See, e. g., Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida
    Search
  10. a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school exceeded Congress' power to regulate commerce, this Court, in United States v. Lopez
    Search
  11. render the traditionally local criminal conduct in which Jones engaged a matter for federal enforcement. United States v. Bass
    Search
  12. interpretive guides. Ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity, Rewis v. United
    Search
  13. harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite, United States v. Universal
    Search
  14. i) is reinforced by the Court's opinion in United States v. Lopez
    Search
  15. that constitutionally doubtful constructions should be avoided where possible, see Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida
    Search
  16. Whether, in light of United States v. Lopez
    Search
  17. rule that constitutionally doubtful constructions should be avoided, see Ed ward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida
    Search
  18. Russell v. 2 Compare United States v. Gaydos
    Search
  19. F.3d 505 (CA3 1997) (vacant, uninhabitable house formerly rented not covered by statute), United States v. Denalli
    Search
  20. owner-occupied residence not covered), modified on other grounds, 90 F.3d 444 (1996) (per curiam), United States v. Mennuti
    Search
  21. F.2d 107 (CA2 1981) (same), with United States v. Ryan
    Search
  22. CA8 1994) (en bane) (vacant former commercial property covered), cert. denied, 514 U. S. 1082 (1995), United States v. Ramey
    Search
  23. F.3d 602 (CA4 1994) (owner-occupied residence covered), cert. denied, 514 U. S. 1103 (1995), and United States v. Stillwell
    Search
  24. F.2d 1104 (CA7) (same), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 838 (1990). 3 Compare United States v. Pappadopoulos
    Search
  25. i) in Russell v. United
    Search
  26. United States v. Mennuti
    Search
  27. n. 1. The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the entire indictment. Our decision in Russell v. United
    Search
  28. for rental. Regarding the family residence, we find Mennuti's reasoning persuasive. 855 United States v. Ryan
    Search
  29. Bailey v. United
    Search
  30. see also Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer
    Search
  31. F. 3d, at 666-667. Sitting en bane, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the panel's judgment. See United States v. Ryan
    Search
  32. advanced by the Government both in Russell and in this case. Compare Brief for United States in Russell v. United
    Search
  33. that do business across state lines, or bears some other trace of interstate commerce. See, e. g., FERC v. Mississippi
    Search
  34. any commerce-affecting activity, would have no office. See United States v. Monholland
    Search
  35. Ratzlaf v. United
    Search
  36. Attorney General v. Delaware
    Search
  37. Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366 , 408 (1909), quoted in Jones v. United
    Search
  38. Ashwander v. TVA
    Search
  39. Rewis v. United
    Search
  40. United States v. Universal
    Search
  41. to emphasize the kinship between our well-established presumption against federal pre-emption of state law, see Ray v. Atlantic
    Search
  42. United States v. Altobella
    Search
  43. See Landreth Timber Co. v. Landreth
    Search
  44. Bennett v. New
    Search
  45. Garcia v. United
    Search
  46. Bell v. United
    Search
  47. McElroy v. United
    Search
  48. Syllabus Jones V. United
    Search
  49. Russell v. United
    Search
  50. Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial