Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Abbott Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 08, 2010

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

52 entries 5 linked 47 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Gonzales US Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1996
  2. United States Vs. Shabani US Supreme Court · Oct 03, 1994
  3. United States Vs. Booker US Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2005
  4. Republic of Iraq Vs. Beaty US Supreme Court · Jun 08, 2009
  5. United States Vs. Morrow US Supreme Court · Jan 05, 1925
  6. Abbott v. United
    Search
  7. States - 09-479 (2010) Syllabus October Term, 2010 Abbott V. United
    Search
  8. c) rendered their sentences excessive. The 1998 alteration responded primarily to Bailey v. United
    Search
  9. to a lesser term, this Court doubts that Congress had such a cure in mind in 1998, seven years before United States v. Booker
    Search
  10. c) proscribes. See United States v. Morrow
    Search
  11. c) in the future. Neither United States v. Gonzales
    Search
  12. U. S. 1 , nor Republic of Iraq v. Beaty
    Search
  13. Gould v. United
    Search
  14. States, on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Abbott v. United
    Search
  15. States - 09-479 (2010) Opinion of the Court Abbott V. United
    Search
  16. United States v. Abbott
    Search
  17. F. 3d 203, 208 (2009). Gould fared no better before the Fifth Circuit. United States v. Gould
    Search
  18. c). United States v. London
    Search
  19. imposed on Abbott and Gould excessive. The 1998 alteration responded primarily to our decision in Bailey v. United
    Search
  20. United States v. Parker
    Search
  21. Abbott Brief 10. Accord United States v. Williams
    Search
  22. Logan v. United
    Search
  23. c) sentence would be wiped out by a wholly separate and independent conviction. United States v. Easter
    Search
  24. CA2 2008). But we doubt Congress had such a cure in mind in 1998, seven years before we held, in United States v. Booker
    Search
  25. Stat. 1987, 2138. Four years earlier, in Busic v. United
    Search
  26. instruction, would simultaneously provide an exception severely limiting application of the instruction. Cf. Greenlaw v. United
    Search
  27. to which it is attached. United States v. Morrow
    Search
  28. c) proscribes. Accord United States v. Villa
    Search
  29. United States v. Studifin
    Search
  30. c) offense). Our decisions in Gonzales and Republic of Iraq v. Beaty
    Search
  31. did not alter his total term of imprisonment and do not figure in this case. Footnote 2 Compare United States v. Williams
    Search
  32. and United States v. Almany
    Search
  33. to a greater mandatory minimum), with United States v. Parker
    Search
  34. United States v. Villa
    Search
  35. United States v. Segarra
    Search
  36. United States v. Easter
    Search
  37. United States v. Alaniz
    Search
  38. Bifulco v. United
    Search
  39. Caron v. United
    Search
  40. Bailey v. United
    Search
  41. See United States v. Morrow
    Search
  42. Neither United States v. Gonzales
    Search
  43. the Fifth Circuit. Abbott v. United
    Search
  44. Opinion of the Court Abbott V. United
    Search
  45. the Fifth Circuit. United States v. Gould
    Search
  46. United States v. London
    Search
  47. Accord United States v. Williams
    Search
  48. Busic v. United
    Search
  49. Cf. Greenlaw v. United
    Search
  50. Accord United States v. Villa
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial