Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Taylor v. United States (2016)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, seeTaylor v. United States.
This article'slead sectioncontains information that is not included elsewhere in the article. If this information is appropriate for the lead, it should also be included in the article's body. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page.(April 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

2016 United States Supreme Court case
Taylor v. United States
Argued February 23, 2016
Decided June 20, 2016
Full case nameDavid Anthony Taylor, Petitioner v. United States
Docket no.14-6166
Citations579U.S. 301 (more)
136 S. Ct. 2074; 195L. Ed. 2d 456
DecisionOpinion
Case history
PriorUnited States v. Taylor, 754F.3d217 (4th Cir. 2014)
Holding
In a federal criminal prosecution under theHobbs Act, the government is not required to prove aninterstate commerce element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
DissentThomas
Laws applied
Hobbs Act

Taylor v. United States, 579 U.S. 301 (2016), was aUnited States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in a federal criminal prosecution under theHobbs Act, the government is not required to prove aninterstate commerce element beyond a reasonable doubt.[1][2][not verified in body] The Court relied on its decision inGonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), which held thatCongress has the authority to regulate the marijuana market given that even local activities can have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce.[not verified in body]

Background

[edit]

David Anthony Taylor performed two home-invasion robberies with the intent of stealing from two perceived marijuana dealers inRoanoke, Virginia. When initially tried in federal court, the jury deadlocked because of arguments that the marijuana in question was grown and intended for use within Virginia. Taylor was then retried where the judge precluded that line of argument and convicted. The high court upheld that conviction.

Opinion of the Court

[edit]

Associate JusticeSamuel Alito authored the majority opinion.[2][further explanation needed]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^SCOTUSblog coverage
  2. ^ab579 U.S.301 (2016)

External links

[edit]
Presentment Clause of Section VII
Commerce Clause of Section VIII
Dormant Commerce Clause
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914
Lanham Act
Othertrademark cases
Others
Coinage Clause of Section VIII
Legal Tender Cases
Copyright Clause of Section VIII
Copyright Act of 1790
Patent Act of 1793
Patent infringement case law
Patentability case law
Copyright Act of 1831
Copyright Act of 1870
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
International Copyright Act of 1891
Copyright Act of 1909
Patent misuse case law
Copyright Act of 1976
Othercopyright cases
Otherpatent cases
Legal Tender Cases
Others
Compact Clause of Section X
Stub icon

This article related to a case of theSupreme Court of the United States of theRoberts Court is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_v._United_States_(2016)&oldid=1311348176"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp