Randall McFadden 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 Congress intended § 844(f)’s prohibition on “maliciously” using fire to damage or destroy government property to extend to acts in willful disregard of the likelihood of damage
• adopting the common law definition of “maliciously” as acting “intentionally or with willful disregard of the likelihood that damage or injury would result”
• construing the functionally identical federal arson statute at 18 U.S.C. § 544(f)
• interpreting the same mens rea requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).