Case Citator › United States v. Hinckley

United States v. Hinckley

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Tenth Circuit
Citation
550 F.3d 926
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
29 of 29
Citing cases (total)
29
Treatment dates
2012
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. United States v. Hinckley was abrogated on when SORNA began to apply to people convicted before its enactment. The Supreme Court held in Reynolds v. United States that the registration duty did not apply to them until the Attorney General specified its applicability.
More on how this was screened

Hinckley's separate Commerce Clause and continuing offense holdings continued to be applied. The 1 confirmed treatment is listed below. All 29 flagged citations have been read.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

29 later cases cite United States v. Hinckley; 29 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 United States v. Hinckley?

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

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court rejected Hinckley's rule that SORNA applied to offenders convicted before its enactment before the Attorney General specified its applicability.

    Reynolds v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Five Circuits have held that they apply from the date of the Act’s enactment, and prior to any such specification, at least with respect to pre-Act offenders who had already registered under state law. ... United States v. Hinckley, 550 F. 3d 926, 932 (CA10 2008); ... The question before us is whether the Act requires pre-Act offenders to register before the Attorney General validly specifies that the Act’s registration provisions apply to them. We believe that it does not.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Hinckley 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