Citation network
Carter Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 19, 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
-
Carter v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 530 U.S. 255 (2000) October Term, 1999 Syllabus Carter V. UnitedSearch
-
b). Pp.260-274. (a) In Schmuck v. UnitedSearch
-
they mean something. Potter v. UnitedSearch
-
the anomaly, if it truly exists, is only an anomaly. It is doubtful that it rises to the level of absurdity. Cf. Green v. BockSearch
-
only when Congress makes use of a statutory term with established meaning at common law. See, e. g., Morissette v. UnitedSearch
-
when it sheds light on some ambiguous word or phrase in the statute itself. E. g., Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. YeskeySearch
-
statutes silent as to mens rea to include broadly applicable scienter requirements, see, e. g., United States v. X-CitementSearch
-
s actus reus (here, the taking of property of another by force or violence or intimidation). See, e. g., Staples v. UnitedSearch
-
of this Court's approach to statutory interpretation, which begins by examining the text, see, e. g., Estate of Cowart v. NicklosSearch
-
Drilling Co., 505 U. S. 469, 475, not by psychoanalyzing those who enacted it, Bank One Chicago, N. A. v. MidwestSearch
-
b) offense. Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
b)'s first paragraph. See, e. g., Castillo v. UnitedSearch
-
JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court. In Schmuck v. UnitedSearch
-
a). The District Court, relying 260 on United States v. MosleySearch
-
Ninth Circuit agrees with the Third that a lesser offense instruction is precluded in this context, see United States v. GregorySearch
-
F.2d 732 , 734 (CA9 1989), other Circuits have held to the contrary, see United States v. WalkerSearch
-
United States v. BrittainSearch
-
U. S., at 716.2 The 1 We granted certiorari in Mosley to address the issue that we resolve today, Mosley v. UnitedSearch
-
Schmuck, 489 U. S., at 716, n. 8 (citing Keeble v. UnitedSearch
-
Potter v. UnitedSearch
-
only an anomaly. Petitioner does not claim, and we tend to doubt, that it rises to the level of absurdity. Cf. Green v. BockSearch
-
statute. This limited scope of the canon on imputing common-law meaning has long been understood. In Morissette v. UnitedSearch
-
an offense analogous to a commonlaw crime without using common-law terms. We made this clear in United States v. WellsSearch
-
citation omitted).4 4 The dissent claims that our decision in United States v. WellsSearch
-
of the statute (specifically, a recodification of numerous sections), 266 Similarly, in United States v. TurleySearch
-
for guidance when the relevant statutory text does contain a term with an established meaning at common law. In Neder v. UnitedSearch
-
these federal statutes implicitly contain a materiality requirement as well. Id., at 23. Similarly, in Evans v. UnitedSearch
-
in the statute itself. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. YeskeySearch
-
U. S. 206 , 212 (1998) (quoting Trainmen v. BaltimoreSearch
-
United States v. X-CitementSearch
-
force and violence or intimidation). Before explaining why this is so under our cases, an example, United States v. LewisSearch
-
Staples v. UnitedSearch
-
X-Citement Video, supra, at 72. In Staples v. UnitedSearch
-
had the characteristics bringing it within the scope of the statute. Id., at 611-612. See also, e. g., Liparota v. UnitedSearch
-
intent crime, these courts have construed the statute to contain a general intent requirement. See United States v. GonyeaSearch
-
statutory interpretation. In analyzing a statute, we begin by examining the text, see, e. g., Estate of Cowart v. NicklosSearch
-
Bank One Chicago, N. A. v. MidwestSearch
-
supports conflicting inferences and provides scant illumination. 10 Carter claims further support in Prince v. UnitedSearch
-
to do so, since the taking-without-asportation scenario is no imagined hypothetical. See, e. g., State v. BoyleSearch
-
us to conclude that the valuation requirement is an element of the first paragraph of subsection (b). See Castillo v. UnitedSearch
-
whatever authority defense counsel may possess to waive a defendant's constitutional rights, see generally New York v. HillSearch
-
that a lesser included offense instruction was properly withheld in this case under the elements-based test of Schmuck v. UnitedSearch
-
who has already been acquitted-or, indeed, convicted-by a jury of bank robbery on the same facts. See Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
Almendarez-Torres v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 523 U. S. 224 , 234 (1998) (quoting Trainmen v. BaltimoreSearch
-
federal criminal laws in accordance with their common-law origins, if Congress has not directed otherwise. See Neder v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial