United States v. Richie Fontaine

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that statute prohibiting possession of an imitation firearm during crime of violence was not unconstitutionally vague
• explaining that “we should ‘presume[] that the legislature intended exceptions to its language, which would avoid [absurd]’ results” (alterations in original) (quoting Gov’t of the V.I. v. Berry, 604 F.2d 221, 225 (3d Cir. 1979))
• explaining that “we should ‘presume[] that the legislature intended exceptions to its language, which would avoid [absurd]’ results” (alterations in original) (quoting Gov’t of the V.I. v. Berry, 604 F.2d 221, 225 (3d Cir. 1979))
• emphasizing that courts avoid absurd conclusions when interpreting statutes
• “It is thus the lack of authorization to have a firearm that stands as a prerequisite to criminal liability [under section 2253(a) ].”
• “An interpretation is absurd 5 when it defies rationality or renders the statute nonsensical and 6 superfluous.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).