W. B. Chaffin & Bro. v. Stuart

How courts have described this case

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

• holding Ohio robbery didn’t qualify for a career- offender enhancement under the “force/elements” clause in section 4B1.2(a)(1)
• applying the modified categorical approach to the same statute at issue here “[b]ecause [the statute’s] theft element is divisible”
• error harmless where court “could not have imposed a lower sentence”
• “‘We are not bound to accept . . . what in effect was a stipulation on a question of law[,]’ [and i]n interpreting statutory language, we cannot delegate our authority to the parties . . . .” (quoting United States v. Wilson, 978 F.3d 990, 996 (6th Cir. 2020))
• applying Duneas-Alvarez to Ohio robbery post-Taylor

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).