Taylor v. United States
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The other citing opinions applied Taylor positively, reported its treatment by another court, or involved arguments, dissents, vacated opinions, and other nonjudicial materials.
5,437 later cases cite Taylor v. United States; 459 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Taylor v. United States?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The Tenth Circuit limited Taylor's categorical approach to its statutory context and held that it did not universally govern sentencing enhancements.
United States v. Martinez-Candejas · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · filed
We must respectfully disagree with the Eleventh Circuit’s analysis. The Supreme Court in Taylor did not impose the categorical approach as a universal requirement of all sentencing enhancements. Taylor was an interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) ... The Guideline at issue here does not require that the disputed fact – a profit motive – be an “element” of the offense, but simply lists “an alien smuggling offense committed for profit” as one of several crimes eligible for a 16-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) (2002). ... But the Court did not suggest that all sentence enhancements must rely on the categorical approach even when statutory language or relevant legislative history point in the other direction.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ninth Circuit held that Taylor's documentation limitations for determining a state conviction predicate did not extend to the type of proof before it.
United States v. Rivera-Grijalva · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · filed
Contrary to Rivera’s assertions, the limitations on documentation to determine whether a state conviction is a factual predicate for a federal sentencing enhancement outlined in Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), and Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), do not extend to this type of proof.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Board of Immigration Appeals limited Taylor's ordinary categorical approach in recidivist possession proceedings, allowing consultation of the record of a prior conviction to establish the required prior conviction and its finality.
Matter of Carachuri-Rosendo · Board of Immigration Appeals, en banc · filed
Finally, the respondent also makes an argument based on application of the categorical approach first announced by the Supreme Court in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), and which the Court has also held applies in immigration proceedings. Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 127 S. Ct. 815 (2007). ... The respondent’s argument is unpersuasive. ... That approach was devised in the criminal context, see Taylor v. United States, supra; ... We are unaware that the categorical approach has ever been applied, in circumstances like those here, to forbid recourse to a record of conviction, where the record of conviction consulted contains sufficient proof of the existence and nature thereof, which is where the argument of the respondent would lead. ... Since that is inconsistent with Lopez’s acknowledgment that State recidivist offenses can be aggravated felonies, it is evident that the Court did not contemplate that the ordinary categorical approach be followed to determine whether the requirements set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) for felony treatment of a recidivist conviction are met.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Tenth Circuit limited Taylor's generic burglary definition by holding that it did not control the distinct Sentencing Guidelines offense of burglary of a dwelling, while retaining Taylor's analytical method.
United States v. Rivera-Oros · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · filed
Both the government and Mr. Rivera-Oros uncritically assume that Taylor’s definition of generic burglary applies to this case. We conclude that this particular definition (as opposed to Taylor’s general analytic approach) is not controlling here.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Third Circuit declined to extend Taylor's categorical approach to contemporaneous Hobbs Act robbery and § 924(c) convictions while relying on Taylor's rationales.
United States v. Anthony Robinson · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · filed
Both Robinson and the government suggest that our analysis under the elements clause should be guided by the so-called “categorical approach.” We do not agree that the categorical approach applies here. ... The categorical approach emerged as a means of judicial analysis in Taylor v. United States. ... For this reason, the approach we adopt here recognizes the differences between § 924(c) and other statutes that require categorical analysis, while at the same time being guided by the rationales put forth in Taylor and the limits set by our Constitution.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Taylor v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace