Skip to content
Try for free
Back to judgment

Citation network

Leocal Vs. Ashcroft

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 09, 2004

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

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

35 entries 35 unlinked
Show
  1. Syllabus October Term, 2004 Leocal V. Ashcroft
    Search
  2. Supreme Court of the United States Leocal V. Ashcroft
    Search
  3. s language. See Bailey v. United
    Search
  4. the Court construes language in its context and in light of the terms surrounding it. See Smith v. United
    Search
  5. in contravention of the rule that effect should be given to every word of a statute whenever possible, see Duncan v. Walker
    Search
  6. P. 11. Reversed and remanded. Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Leocal v. Ashcroft
    Search
  7. Opinion of the Court Leocal V. Ashcroft
    Search
  8. Supreme Court of the United States No. 03-583 Josue Leocal, Petitioner V. John
    Search
  9. s decision in Le v. United
    Search
  10. and Omar v. INS
    Search
  11. CA8 2002), with United States v. Trinidad-Aquino
    Search
  12. Dalton v. Ashcroft
    Search
  13. Bazan-Reyes v. INS
    Search
  14. and United States v. Chapa-Garza
    Search
  15. see also Ursu v. INS
    Search
  16. while it requires proof of causation of injury, does not require proof of any particular mental state. See State v. Hubbard
    Search
  17. can be interpreted to include such offenses. Our analysis begins with the language of the statute. See Bailey v. United
    Search
  18. we construe language in its context and in light of the terms surrounding it. See Smith v. United
    Search
  19. most naturally suggests a higher degree of intent than negligent or merely accidental conduct. See United States v. Trinidad-Aquino
    Search
  20. suggests a category of violent, active crimes that cannot be said naturally to include DUI offenses. Cf. United States v. Doe
    Search
  21. crimes Congress sought to distinguish for heightened punishment and other crimes. See United States v. Lucio-Lucio
    Search
  22. Duncan v. Walker
    Search
  23. physical force against another in committing the DUI offense. See, e.g. , United States v. Lucio-Lucio
    Search
  24. See Bailey v. United
    Search
  25. See Smith v. United
    Search
  26. Duncan v. Walker
    Search
  27. Court. Leocal v. Ashcroft
    Search
  28. Josue Leocal, Petitioner V. John
    Search
  29. United States v. Trinidad-Aquino
    Search
  30. Ursu v. INS
    Search
  31. See State v. Hubbard
    Search
  32. See United States v. Trinidad-Aquino
    Search
  33. Cf. United States v. Doe
    Search
  34. See United States v. Lucio-Lucio
    Search
  35. United States v. Lucio-Lucio
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales