Vonder Meulen v. Department of Revenue, Child Support Program

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “[t]he terms ‘hearing’ and ‘opportunity to participate’ are not arcane legal terms that the general public does not understand”
• stating that “[the defendant’s] lack of knowledge of the existence of [§ 922(g)(8)] is therefore immaterial and his due process rights were not violated in this case”
• noting that the emergency protective order set a date for a second hearing
• noting that the emergency protective order set a date for a second hearing
• distinguishing Lopez because, unlike the former Section 922(q), Section 922(g) contains a jurisdictional element which establishes the requisite nexus with interstate commerce
• distinguishing Lopez because, unlike the former Section 922(q), Section 922(g) contains a jurisdictional element which establishes the requisite nexus with interstate commerce

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).