United States v. William Nathaniel Cobb

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the federal carjacking statute fell within Lopez's second category because the statute regulated harm to automobiles
• recognizing that the federal carjacking statute fell within Lopez’s second category because the statute regu- lated harm to automobiles
• holding that both sec- tion 2119's jurisdictional element and its regulation of an instrumen- tality of interstate commerce distinguish it from the statute rejected in Lopez
• holding that “[c]ars, like trains and aircraft” are instrumentalities of interstate commerce because they are “inherently mobile and indispensable to the inter- state movement of persons and goods”
• recognizing power of Congress to regulate motor vehicles as instrumentalities of interstate commerce
• “Section 2119 applies only to the forcible taking of motor vehicles that have been ‘transported, shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce.’ ” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).