United States v. Barry Kaplan
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
1Dissent
BIRCH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting, in which TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, join:
I respectfully dissent. The majority’s holding will result in the federalization of any crime involving extortion to acquire money. Plainly stated, “[t]his is a case about federalism.”1 If we were to accept the government’s position on this issue, the Hobbs Act would completely subsume state extortion and robbery laws by creating a federal criminal offense in each and every case in which the pay-off is at all likely to cross state lines. Surely, Congress cannot have intended any such result.
The plain…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- United States v. LopezSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Russell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- United States v. GrimesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1998
- United States v. John W. Quigley Johnny Ray JonesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1995
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.