This HTML5 document contains 101 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
n19http://dbpedia.org/resource/File:
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n13https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/
n15https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n14https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/578/14-361/
n17https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/
n16https://www.leagle.com/decision/
n8http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Ocasio_v._United_States
rdf:type
wikidata:Q2334719 dbo:UnitOfWork dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase dbo:LegalCase dbo:Case owl:Thing
rdfs:label
Ocasio v. United States
rdfs:comment
Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified whether the Hobbs Act's definition of conspiracy to commit extortion only includes attempts to acquire property from someone who is not a member of the conspiracy. The case arose when Samuel Ocasio, a former Baltimore, Maryland police officer, was indicted for participating in a kickback scheme with an automobile repair shop where officers would refer drivers of damaged vehicles to the shop in exchange for cash payments. Ocasio argued that he should not be found guilty of conspiring to commit extortion because the only property that was exchanged in the scheme was transferred from one member of the conspiracy to another, and an individual cannot be found guilty of conspiring to
foaf:name
Samuel Ocasio, Petitioner v. United States of America
foaf:depiction
n8:Samuel_Alito_official_photo.jpg
dcterms:subject
dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbc:Hobbs_Act_case_law
dbo:wikiPageID
50398574
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1077588519
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Appeal dbr:Hobbs_Act dbr:Baltimore,_Maryland dbr:Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court dbr:Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:L._Ed._2d dbr:Sonia_Sotomayor dbr:Jonathan_H._Adler dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbr:Mens_rea dbr:4th_Cir. dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbr:F.3d dbr:The_George_Washington_Law_Review dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fourth_Circuit dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Maryland dbr:Luis_v._United_States dbr:Lists_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_volume dbr:Bank_Markazi_v._Peterson dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_the_Roberts_Court dbr:Sua_sponte dbr:Conspiracy_(criminal) dbr:Stephen_Breyer dbr:Kickback_(bribery) dbr:Clarence_Thomas dbr:Lexical_definition dbr:Certiorari dbr:Automobile_repair_shop n19:Samuel_Alito_official_photo.jpg dbr:Extortion dbr:SCOTUSblog dbr:Dissenting_opinion dbr:Jury_instructions dbr:Samuel_Alito dbr:Bribery dbr:Traffic_collision dbc:Hobbs_Act_case_law dbr:Federalism_in_the_United_States dbr:John_Roberts
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n14: n16:infco20140429141 n17:14-361_db8e.pdf n13:14-361
owl:sameAs
yago-res:Ocasio_v._United_States n15:2MqBh wikidata:Q25080100
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Ussc dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:US_federal_public_corruption_law dbt:Reflist dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Bots
dbo:thumbnail
n8:Samuel_Alito_official_photo.jpg?width=300
dbp:dissent
Sotomayor Thomas
dbp:docket
14
dbp:joindissent
Roberts
dbp:joinmajority
Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan
dbp:lawsapplied
Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 371, 1951.
dbp:opinionannouncement
n17:14-361_db8e.pdf
dbp:oralargument
n13:14-361
dbp:oyez
n13:14-361
dbp:parallelcitations
172800.0
dbp:prior
25920.0
dbp:uspage
___
dbp:usvol
578
dbp:arguedate
0001-10-06
dbp:argueyear
2015
dbp:case
Ocasio v. United States,
dbp:decidedate
0001-05-02
dbp:decideyear
2016
dbp:fullname
Samuel Ocasio, Petitioner v. United States of America
dbp:holding
A defendant may be charged with conspiracy to commit extortion even though the ones being extorted are part of the extortion scheme.
dbp:justia
n14:
dbp:litigants
Ocasio v. United States
dbp:majority
Alito
dbp:otherSource
Supreme Court
dbp:otherUrl
n17:14-361_db8e.pdf
dbo:abstract
Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified whether the Hobbs Act's definition of conspiracy to commit extortion only includes attempts to acquire property from someone who is not a member of the conspiracy. The case arose when Samuel Ocasio, a former Baltimore, Maryland police officer, was indicted for participating in a kickback scheme with an automobile repair shop where officers would refer drivers of damaged vehicles to the shop in exchange for cash payments. Ocasio argued that he should not be found guilty of conspiring to commit extortion because the only property that was exchanged in the scheme was transferred from one member of the conspiracy to another, and an individual cannot be found guilty of conspiring to extort a co-conspirator. Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Samuel Alito held that a conspiracy to violate the Hobbs Act can occur when an individual obtains property from another conspirator under the pretense that they have an official right to take that property. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he suggested that the Court may need to revisit prior cases that have held that "extortion" is roughly equivalent to "bribery". Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion in which he also argued that the Court should overturn a line of cases that has conflated the definition of extortion with bribery, and he also argued that the majority's opinion was inconsistent with principles of federalism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also wrote a dissenting opinion in which she argued that the majority's opinion was inconsistent with the plain language of the Hobbs Act as well as the Court's prior conspiracy law jurisprudence. Although some commentators have stated that the case is consistent with prior precedent, at least one commentator has suggested that the case will "raise more questions than answers."
dbp:concurrence
Breyer
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Ocasio_v._United_States?oldid=1077588519&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
17002
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Ocasio_v._United_States