Case Citator › United States v. Scott Evan Jones

United States v. Scott Evan Jones

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

Overruled in part
Court
Eleventh Circuit
Citation
899 F.2d 1097
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
164 of 164
Citing cases (total)
310
Treatment dates
1993–2009
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. All 164 flagged citations for United States v. Scott Evan Jones have been read, confirming the 2 adverse treatments listed below: 1 partial overruling and 1 limitation. The Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc in United States v. Morrill overruled Jones's rule that bank tellers are categorically vulnerable victims under U.S.S.G.
More on how this was screened

§ 3A1.1. United States v. Tate later declined to extend Jones's sentencing objection-elicitation procedure to Batson objections. The remaining citing opinions applied Jones's unaffected rules, reported Morrill's act in history parentheticals, rejected claims that later decisions implicitly overruled Jones, or concerned unrelated authority.

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.

310 later cases cite United States v. Scott Evan Jones; 164 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. Scott Evan Jones?

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

Overruled in part

  • The Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc overruled Jones to the extent it treated bank tellers as categorically vulnerable victims under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1.

    United States v. Morrill · Eleventh Circuit · filed

    Because a panel cannot overturn circuit precedent, we voted the case en banc. We now hold that bank tellers, as a class, are not vulnerable victims within the meaning of section 3A1.1. To the extent that Jones holds to the contrary, that case is overruled.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Eleventh Circuit declined to extend Jones's sentencing objection-elicitation procedure to Batson objections during jury selection.

    United States v. Tate · Eleventh Circuit · filed

    Tate requests that this court create a new rule mandating that district courts provide counsel with an opportunity to raise Batson objections, similar to the rule announced in United States v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1097, 1102 (11th Cir. 1990), overruled in part on other grounds by United States v. Morrill, 984 F.2d 1136 (11th Cir. 1993). However, we decline the invitation. The reasoning in Jones does not apply to Batson objections because the Jones inquiry is intended to provide the district court with an opportunity “to correct on the spot any error it may have made” at a sentencing hearing.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Scott Evan Jones 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