Hailes v. DeCaigny

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that \fear of injury\ in the Hobbs Act robbery statute requires \fear of injury from the use of force\
• concluding that “fear of injury” in the Hobbs Act robbery statute requires “fear of injury from the use of force”
• rejecting defendant’s argument that “Hobbs Act robbery is not covered by the [Section 924(c)(3) ] [floree clause because it is possible to put someone in fear of injury without the threat of force”
• rejecting defendant’s argument that “Hobbs Act robbery is not covered by the [Section 924(c)(3) ] [floree clause because it is possible to put someone in fear of injury without the threat of force”
• robbery by “intentionally perform[ing] objectively intimidating actions in the course of unlawfully taking the property of another” would qualify as crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A
• robbery by “intentionally perform[ing] 35 objectively intimidating actions in the course of unlawfully taking the property of another” would qualify as crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).