State ex rel. Robinson v. LaRose (Slip Opinion)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a “conviction for aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery satisfies [the ACCA’s] force clause”
• declining to address the constitutionality of § 924(c)(3)’s residual clause, and holding that the defendant’s conviction for aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A)
• declining to address the constitutionality of § 924(c)(3)’s residual clause, and holding that the defendant’s conviction for aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A)
• noting that an issue was outside the scope of a limited remand because the issue for which the case was remanded “does not affect any of the alleged errors” asserted on appeal and because the defendant could have raised those arguments at trial or on his first appeal
• “[Taylor] forecloses Richardson’s argument that [§ 924(c

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).