O'Reilly v. Cleveland Railway Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendant's actions in offering minor alcohol and marijuana, checking into a motel room for a four-hour stay, and having sex with the minor sufficed to show his intent to have sex with her
• stating that precedents inconsistent with the outcome of a Rule 40(e) decision, used to address inconsistencies in circuit law, “have no continuing force”
• stating that precedents inconsistent with the outcome of a Rule 40(e) decision, used to address inconsistencies in circuit law, “have no continuing force”
• acknowledging that the defense of consent under 720 ILCS 5/11-1.60 is an issue of state law
• state offenses were elements; “Section 2423(a) creates a piggyback offense: The prosecution must show that the sexual activity after crossing the state line violated some other statute.”
• “there is no priority among the many reasons for not deciding a case”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).