Citation network
Chambers Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 13, 2009
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
-
Chambers v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 06-11206 (2009) Syllabus October Term, 2008 Chambers V. UnitedSearch
-
s definitions, it is the generic crime that counts, not how the crime was committed on a particular occasion. Taylor v. UnitedSearch
-
federal alone v. federal-plus-stateSearch
-
JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas, JJ., joined. Chambers v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 06-11206 (2009) Opinion of the Court Chambers V. UnitedSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 06-11206 Deondery Chambers, Petitioner V. UnitedSearch
-
we granted certiorari. Compare United States v. WinnSearch
-
with United States v. PiccoloSearch
-
that counts. Taylor v. UnitedSearch
-
see also Shepard v. UnitedSearch
-
burglary the defendant attempted on a particular occasion, but the generic crime of attempted burglary. James v. UnitedSearch
-
a risk of physical harm than the less passive, more aggressive behavior underlying an escape from custody. See Begay v. UnitedSearch
-
in which reported opinions indicate that individuals shot at officers attempting to recapture them. See United States v. EaglinSearch
-
State v. JohnsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
State v. JonesSearch
-
for force and also for injury. Therefore, the reader should not aggregate the numbers in any column. Chambers v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 06-11206 (2009) Alito, J., Concurring in Judgment Chambers V. UnitedSearch
-
Begay v. UnitedSearch
-
John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
that we adopted in Taylor v. UnitedSearch
-
the defendant visibly possessed a firearm during the commission of certain felonies (including robbery). See McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
s residual clause to commit rape, compare United States v. SawyersSearch
-
F. 3d 732 (CA6 2005) (statutory rape not categorically violent), with United States v. WilliamsSearch
-
F. 3d 575 (CA5 1997) (inducement of minor to commit sodomy violent), and United States v. ThomasSearch
-
retaliate against a government officer, compare United States v. MontgomerySearch
-
attempt or conspire to commit burglary, compare United States v. FellSearch
-
F. 3d 1035 (CA10 2007) (even after James v. UnitedSearch
-
and even where statute requires an overt act, conspiracy to commit burglary not violent), with United States v. MooreSearch
-
carry a concealed weapon, compare United States v. WhitfieldSearch
-
F. 2d 798 (CA8 1990) (not violent), with United States v. HallSearch
-
and possess a sawed-off shotgun as a felon, compare United States v. AmosSearch
-
F. 3d 524 (CA6 2007) (not violent), with United States v. BishopSearch
-
F. 3d 30 (CA1 2006) (violent). Compare also United States v. Sanchez-GarciaSearch
-
s residual clause), with United States v. RelifordSearch
-
s residual clause), and United States v. Galvan-RodriguezSearch
-
Taylor v. UnitedSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Chambers V. UnitedSearch
-
Deondery Chambers, Petitioner V. UnitedSearch
-
Compare United States v. WinnSearch
-
United States v. PiccoloSearch
-
Shepard v. UnitedSearch
-
James v. UnitedSearch
-
See Begay v. UnitedSearch
-
See United States v. EaglinSearch
-
Alito, J., Concurring in Judgment Chambers V. UnitedSearch
-
See McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
United States v. SawyersSearch
-
United States v. WilliamsSearch
-
and United States v. ThomasSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial