City of St. Louis v. Roland Hill

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a defendant can’t establish ineffective assistance if counsel decided “not to pursue suppression motions that would have likely been futile”
• concluding that “of the United States” modified several preceding nouns in list, because “listed items are simple and parallel without unexpected internal modifiers or structure”
• concluding that the phrase “involving a minor or ward” only modified “abusive sexual conduct” in the phrase “aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward”
• explaining that the rule of the last antecedent may “be overcome by other indicia of meaning”
• explaining that the last antecedent principle is less persuasive when the modifier just as naturally applies to all elements of the list
• noting that the ʺCourt has long acknowledged that structural or contextual evidence may rebut the last antecedent inferenceʺ (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).