Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 17 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Iniguez-Barba.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Iniguez-Barba Anchor | green | “substantial interference with the victim's liberty.” | 3 |
| 2 | United States v. Soto-Sanchez | green | “more than unlawful confinement or restraint of the victim,” | 3 |
| 3 | United States v. Soto-Sanchez | green | “require a specific, 'nefarious' purpose other than merely restraining the victim” | 3 |
| 4 | United States v. Abeu Gonzalez-Perez, A.K.A. Oscar Ortiz-Garcia | green | “encompasses, at a minimum, the concept of a 'nefarious purpose' motivating restriction of a victim's liberty” | 3 |
| 5 | United States v. Esparza-Herrera | green | “derive the crime's uniform meaning from the generic, contemporary meaning employed by most states, guided by scholarly commentary.” | 3 |
| 6 | United States v. Esparza-Herrera | green | “contemporary meaning employed by most states, guided by scholarly commentary.” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.