U.S. v. Crawley
Decision Date | 07 January 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 87-1967,87-1967 |
Citation | 837 F.2d 291 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Allan CRAWLEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
David J. Ryan, Danville, Ill., for defendant-appellant.
Frances C. Hulin, U.S. Atty. Office, Danville, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before POSNER, EASTERBROOK and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
In an unpublished order issued today, we affirm the district court's order revoking defendant Crawley's probation and sentencing him to three years in prison. This opinion is confined to the question whether, in United States v. Yancey, 827 F.2d 83, 89 (7th Cir.1987), a panel of this court changed the standard of proof in revocation cases. In United States v. Smith, 571 F.2d 370, 372 and n. 2 (7th Cir.1978), we had held that a district court may revoke probation if "reasonably satisfied" that the probationer has violated a condition of his probation. In United States v. Torrez-Flores, 624 F.2d 776, 781 (7th Cir.1980), we referred approvingly to the standard, although its propriety had not been put in issue in that case. Every other circuit to consider the question has adopted the "reasonably satisfied" standard. See, e.g., United States v. Rice, 671 F.2d 455, 458 (11th Cir.1982). However, in Yancey we said that the evidence presented in the revocation hearing that Yancey had violated a condition of his probation, although it "might not be sufficient to find Yancey guilty of the act charged in a criminal case, ... satisfies the requirement for proof by a preponderance necessary in probation revocation hearings." 827 F.2d at 89. Shortly afterward, without citing Yancey, we reiterated the "reasonably satisfied" standard, even remarking that "the district court went further than necessary when it evaluated the evidence before it under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard." United States v. Warner, 830 F.2d 651, 655 (7th Cir.1987); see also United States v. Rife, 835 F.2d 154, 155 (7th Cir.1987). The district court applied the "reasonably satisfied" standard in this case, not the preponderance standard.
The statement in Yancey was a dictum, a term variously defined. We have defined dictum as "a statement in a judicial opinion that could have been deleted without seriously impairing the analytical foundations of the holding--that, being peripheral, may not have received the full and careful consideration of the court that uttered it." Sarnoff v. American Home Products Corp., 798 F.2d 1075, 1084 (7th Cir.1986). Local 8599, United Steelworkers of America v. Board of Education, 162 Cal.App.3d 823, 834, 209 Cal.Rptr. 16, 21 (1984). A dictum is Stover v. Stover, 60 Md.App. 470, 476, 483 A.2d 783, 786 (1984). It is "a statement not addressed to the question before the court or necessary for its decision." American Family Mutual Ins. Co. v. Shannon, 120 Wis.2d 560, 565, 356 N.W.2d 175, 178 (1984). As often in dealing with complex terms, the definitions (those above, and others w...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gillispie v. Village of Franklin Park
...this as dicta. 298 F.3d at 685. The definitions of dicta are somewhat inconsistent, vague and circular. United States v. Crawley, 837 F.2d 291, 292 (7th Cir.1988)(Posner, J.). The Seventh Circuit in Crawley suggested that "instead of asking what the word `dictum' means we ask what reasons t......
-
United States v. Washington
...have formed an essential basis for the earlier decision.” Matter of Ellis, 674 F.2d 1238, 1250 (9th Cir.1982) ; United States v. Crawley, 837 F.2d 291, 292 (7th Cir.1988). The dictum comments of the Court of Appeals are consistent with a requirement that individual Chehalis and Shoalwater e......
-
State v. Davis
...that reasonable satisfaction is the proper standard, and did so after Gagnon v. Scarpelli, supra, was decided. See United States v. Crawley, 837 F.2d 291, 292 (7th Cir.1988) ("[e]very other circuit to consider the question has adopted the 'reasonably satisfied' standard"); see also United S......
-
Williamson v. US
...by "the fires of adversary presentation." Allen v. United States, 603 A.2d 1219, 1229 n. 20 (D.C.1992) (quoting United States v. Crawley, 837 F.2d 291, 293 (7th Cir.1988)). Under all of these circumstances, the authorities on which Judge FERREN relies "may not be converted, by barristerial ......
-
Michael L. Eber, When the Dissent Creates the Law: Cross-cutting Majorities and the Prediction Model of Precedent
...147 See Abramowicz & Stearns, supra note 112, at 1021-23 (discussing consideration argument); see also United States v. Crawley, 837 F.2d 291, 292-93 (7th Cir. 1988) (Posner, J.) (same); Thurmon, supra note 1, at 454; cf. WAMBAUGH, supra note 4, Sec. 17, at 25 ("If it can be shown that ther......
-
Assessing the Identity of a Claim: the Preclusive Effect of a Prior Challenge to an Administrative Agency's Statutory Interpretation on Subsequent Tax Litigation in Pittston Co. v. United States
...of restraining the collection of a tax). 113. Pittston, 199 F.3d at 702. 114. Id. at 703. 115. Id. (citing United States v. Crawley, 837 F.2d 291, 292 (7th Cir. 1998)). 116. Pittston, 199 F.3d at 703. 117. Id. 118. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-461 (1994......
-
Assessing the Identity of a Claim: the Preclusive Effect of a Prior Challenge to an Administrative Agency's Statutory Interpretation on Subsequent Tax Litigation in Pittston Co. v. United States
...of restraining the collection of a tax). 113. Pittston, 199 F.3d at 702. 114. Id. at 703. 115. Id. (citing United States v. Crawley, 837 F.2d 291, 292 (7th Cir. 1998)). 116. Pittston, 199 F.3d at 703. 117. Id. 118. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-461 (1994......
-
Holding versus Dicta
...Brooklyn Law Review 76 (1): 219–64.Tate v. Showboat Marina Casino P’ship. 2005. 431 F.3d 580 (7th Circuit).United States v. Crawley. 1998. 837 F.2d 291.United States v. Mead Corp. 2001. 533 U.S. 218.Ura, Joseph Daniel. 2014. “Backlash and Legitimation: Macro Political Responses to Supreme C......