United States v. James Misleveck

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting argument that the Supreme Court chose the Model Penal Code’s definition of arson as the definition of generic arson and rejecting as “absurd[]” the idea that generic arson should be confined to the Model Penal Code’s definition
• “Maliciously” means “deliberately (or in willful disregard of known or suspected consequences) using fire to do a harmful act.”
• The Supreme Court has “neither defined ‘purposeful’ nor explained the qualifier ‘typically.’”
• generic arson must punish more than gross negligence
• “intentional or malicious burning of property”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).