DeHart v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that by using the term “affecting . . . commerce,” “ ‘Congress did not define the crime described in [18 U. S. C.] § 844(i
• holding that federal arson statute does not encompass burning of owner-occupied residence not used for any commercial activity
• holding that application of federal arson statute to a private home would federalize a typically state crime and, thereby, \significantly change[ ] the federal-state balance in the prosecution of crimes\
• holding that a private residence is not \used in\ interstate commerce and therefore concluding that federal arson statute does not cover arson of a private residence
• holding that federal arson statute does not encompass burning of owner-occupied residence not used for any commercial activity
• holding that an owner-occupied home did not have a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce to establish federal jurisdiction to prosecute someone under § 844(i)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).