§Why CasetextPricing

Michalowski v. Rutherford et al

REPLY

30 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 255,123 times   280 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

  2. Descamps v. United States

    570 U.S. 254 (2013)   Cited 4,975 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "may look only to the statutory definitions—i.e ., the elements—of a defendant’s prior offenses"

  3. Shepard v. U.S.

    544 U.S. 13 (2005)   Cited 4,236 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when conducting certain inquires related to prior convictions courts are limited to certain judicial record evidence-charging instruments, terms of a plea agreement, or "transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea was confirmed by the defendant, or to some comparable judicial record"

  4. Taylor v. United States

    495 U.S. 575 (1990)   Cited 5,243 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the term "burglary" as used in the Armed Career Criminal Act was to be given its "generic, contemporary meaning" to avoid a scenario in which "a person ... would, or would not, receive a sentence enhancement based on exactly the same conduct, depending on whether the State of his prior conviction happened to call that conduct ‘burglary’ "

  5. Nijhawan v. Holder

    557 U.S. 29 (2009)   Cited 584 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a statute requires "a circumstance-specific approach" where it refers to "conduct involved 'in' the commission of the offense of conviction, rather than to the elements of the offense"

  6. Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc.

    537 U.S. 393 (2003)   Cited 388 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that liability for extortion under RICO, which prohibits an "act or threat involving ... extortion ... which is chargeable under State law," did not depend on conduct that violated a state statute expressly prohibiting "extortion," but, instead, need only violate a statute "capable of being generically classified as extortionate."

  7. Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.

    745 F.2d 1101 (7th Cir. 1984)   Cited 2,370 times
    Holding that a complaint may not be amended by briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss

  8. Slaney v. International Amateur Athletic Federation

    244 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2001)   Cited 384 times
    Holding "[a]n appellate court may affirm the district court's [decision] on any ground supported by the Record, even if different from the grounds relied upon by the district court."

  9. Crichton v. Golden Rule Ins. Co.

    576 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2009)   Cited 141 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding non-resident plaintiffs may only sue under the Illinois consumer fraud statute if the circumstances relating to the alleged fraudulent transaction occurred mostly in Illinois

  10. James Cape & Sons Co. v. PCC Construction Co.

    453 F.3d 396 (7th Cir. 2006)   Cited 134 times
    Holding that dismissal with prejudice was not an abuse of discretion where district court "could have quite reasonably believed that an amended complaint would suffer the same fatal flaws as the one before it"

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 157,557 times   196 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Section 924 - Penalties

    18 U.S.C. § 924   Cited 66,175 times   187 Legal Analyses
    Holding that conviction for eluding police, under Maine statute which provides that "[w]hoever, after being requested or signaled to stop, attempts to elude a law enforcement officer by driving a vehicle at a reckless rate of speed which results in a high-speed chase between the operator's vehicle and any law enforcement vehicle using a blue light and siren is guilty" of a felony-level crime, involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)

  13. Section 1101 - Definitions

    8 U.S.C. § 1101   Cited 16,421 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding notice and comment rulemaking is required for the agency's interim rule recognizing fear of coercive family practices as basis for refugee status

  14. Section 1962 - Prohibited activities

    18 U.S.C. § 1962   Cited 15,957 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Specifying prohibited activities

  15. Section 3559 - Sentencing classification of offenses

    18 U.S.C. § 3559   Cited 3,398 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Prescribing penalties for violations of, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422, 2423, and 2251

  16. Section 720 ILCS 5/12-6 - Intimidation

    720 ILCS 5/12-6   Cited 93 times
    Requiring proof that the accused threatened someone with the intent to cause that person to perform or omit the performance of any act

  17. Section 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-55 - Class A Misdemeanors; Sentence

    730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-55   Cited 82 times

    For a Class A misdemeanor: (a) TERM. The sentence of imprisonment shall be a determinate sentence of less than one year. (b) PERIODIC IMPRISONMENT. A sentence of periodic imprisonment shall be for a definite term of less than one year, except as otherwise provided in Section 5-5-3 or 5-7-1 ( 730 ILCS 5/5-5 -3 or 5/5-7-1). (c) IMPACT INCARCERATION. See Section 5-8-1.2 ( 730 ILCS 5/5-8 -1.2) concerning eligibility for the county impact incarceration program. (d) PROBATION; CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE. Except

  18. Section 5 ILCS 430/50-5 - Penalties

    5 ILCS 430/50-5   Cited 5 times

    (a) A person is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if that person intentionally violates any provision of Section 5-15, 5-30, 5-40, or 5-45 or Article 15. (a-1) An ethics commission may levy an administrative fine for a violation of Section 5-45 of this Act of up to 3 times the total annual compensation that would have been obtained in violation of Section 5-45. (b) A person who intentionally violates any provision of Section 5-20, 5-35, 5-50, or 5-55 is guilty of a business offense subject to a fine

  19. Section 5 ILCS 430/5-15 - Prohibited political activities

    5 ILCS 430/5-15   Cited 4 times

    (a) State employees shall not intentionally perform any prohibited political activity during any compensated time (other than vacation, personal, or compensatory time off). State employees shall not intentionally misappropriate any State property or resources by engaging in any prohibited political activity for the benefit of any campaign for elective office or any political organization. (b) At no time shall any executive or legislative branch constitutional officer or any official, director, supervisor

  20. Section 5 ILCS 430/5-35 - Contributions on State property

    5 ILCS 430/5-35   Cited 1 times

    Contributions shall not be intentionally solicited, accepted, offered, or made on State property by public officials, by State employees, by candidates for elective office, by persons required to be registered under the Lobbyist Registration Act, or by any officers, employees, or agents of any political organization, except as provided in this Section. For purposes of this Section, "State property" means any building or portion thereof owned or exclusively leased by the State or any State agency