Tenth Circuit· 6/20/2006

United States v. Patton

Citations

451 F.3d 615
21 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 781
2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 15155
2006 WL 1681336

How courts have described this case

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

suggesting that a proper statute under the Commerce Clause could “protect [an item] while it is moving in interstate shipment”
holding that because the defendant’s bulletproof vest had “moved across state lines at some point in its existence, Congress may regulate it under Scarborough, even though it does not fall within any of the three categories the Court now recognizes for Commerce Clause authority”
concluding that 18 U.S.C. § 931(a) fails Morrison
noting that the Scarborough precedent does not fit within the Lopez categories
noting “considerable tension” between Scarborough and Lopez, but concluding that “[a]ny doctrinal inconsistency between Scarborough and the Supreme Court’s more recent decisions is not for this Court to remedy”
interpreting Scarborough, which “assumed that Congress could constitutionally regulate the possession of firearms solely because they had previously moved across state lines,” to have been “left intact by 10 USA V. HOWALD Lopez”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McConnell, Baldock, Armijo

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

61 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named United States v. Patton

21 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.