United States v. Daniel Garcia

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “nothing in Morrison undermined Russell’s per se rule that damage to a rental apartment building satisfies the jurisdictional provi- sions of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i
• applying Russell’s per se rule that all rental property affects interstate commerce
• “[W]e have expressed a . . . reluctance to abandon Supreme Court precedent on the premise that a subsequent case has effected an implicit overruling of earlier Supreme Court precedent.”
• “[T]he congressional power to regulate 16 the class of activities that constitute the rental market for real estate includes the power to regulate individual activity within that class.” (quoting Russell, 471 U.S. at 862)
• \[T]he congressional power to regulate the class of activities that constitute the rental market for real estate includes the power to regulate individual activity within that class.\ (quoting Russell , 471 U.S. at 862 , 105 S.Ct. 2455 )

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).