Citation network
Johnson Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 01, 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
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 08-6925 (2010) Syllabus October Term, 2009 Johnson V. UnitedSearch
-
s conclusion in State v. HearnsSearch
-
the Court gives the phrase its ordinary meaning. Bailey v. UnitedSearch
-
i.e., force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person. Cf. Leocal v. AshcroftSearch
-
a)(2)(E). See, e.g., Chambers v. UnitedSearch
-
Shepard v. UnitedSearch
-
Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
States - 08-6925 (2010) Opinion of the Court Johnson V. UnitedSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 08-6925 Curtis Darnell Johnson, Petitioner V. UnitedSearch
-
Because the elements of the offense are disjunctive, the prosecution can prove a battery in one of three ways. State v. HearnsSearch
-
permitted the District Court to conclude that it rested upon anything more than the least of these acts, see Shepard v. UnitedSearch
-
See Johnson v. FankellSearch
-
Jackson v. VirginiaSearch
-
and we therefore give the phrase its ordinary meaning. Bailey v. UnitedSearch
-
Lynch v. CommonwealthSearch
-
disagree. Although a common-law term of art should be given its established common-law meaning, United States v. TurleySearch
-
e)(2)(B). In Leocal v. AshcroftSearch
-
that is, force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person. See Flores v. AshcroftSearch
-
see also United States v. DoeSearch
-
Russello v. UnitedSearch
-
that we have approved, Nijhawan v. HolderSearch
-
findings of fact and conclusions of law from a bench trial, and jury instructions and verdict forms. See Chambers v. UnitedSearch
-
Taylor v. UnitedSearch
-
past obtained convictions under the Armed Career Criminal Act in precisely this manner. See, e.g., United States v. SimmsSearch
-
cf. United States v. Robledo-LeyvaSearch
-
United States v. Luque-BarahonaSearch
-
which includes (i) apples and (ii) overripe oranges must exclude overripe apples. It does not follow. Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 08-6925 (2010) Alito, J., Dissenting Johnson V. UnitedSearch
-
common-law meaning, we generally presume that Congress intended to adopt that meaning. See, e.g. , United States v. TurleySearch
-
Morissette v. UnitedSearch
-
e)(2)(B),(ii), and we have held that ACCA also reaches the crime of attempted burglary, James v. UnitedSearch
-
such a risk. For example, when one bar patron spits on another, violence is a likely consequence. See United States v. Velazquez-OveraSearch
-
United States v. WoodSearch
-
not have the same meaning as they do today. At that time, imprisonment as a form of punishment was rare, see Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
most felonies were punishable by death, see Tennessee v. GarnerSearch
-
such as kidnaping and assault with the intent to murder or rape, were categorized as misdemeanors. See United States v. WatsonSearch
-
has come to mean any offense punishable by a lengthy term of imprisonment (commonly more than one year, see Burgess v. UnitedSearch
-
and Congress therefore enacted this provision to keep firearms out of the hands of such abusers. United States v. HayesSearch
-
People v. PinholsterSearch
-
Ray v. UnitedSearch
-
State v. SchenckSearch
-
Kellum v. StateSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial