Commonwealth v. Ingram, A.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a retroactivity analysis “should be conducted with ‘the presumption of prospectivity’” where the court has given deference to our decision pursuant to National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005
• relying on pattern jury instructions to determine the elements of a California crime
• deferring to the Board’s decision in Matter of Cortes Medina, 26 I&N Dec. at 84, which rejected the requirement that a crime involving moral turpitude involve intent to harm, actual harm, or a protected class
• deferring to the Board’s decision in Matter of Cortes Medina, 26 I&N Dec. at 84, which rejected the requirement that a crime involving moral turpitude involve intent to harm, actual harm, or a protected class
• “Reasonable minds can differ when deciding whether certain crimes are morally turpitudinous. Indeed, we did so in Nunez. However, pursuant to Brand X, we must defer to the BIA’s decision in Cortes Medina.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).