Catlett v. United States
Virgil Raymond Catlett, III v. United States
Opinion of the Court
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Dissent
Justice White,
dissenting.
Petitioners were convicted and fined for hunting doves in a “baited” field contrary to the Federal Migratory Bird Act, 16 U. S. C. §703 , and the regulations issued thereunder, despite their claim that they were unaware of the baiting and that they could not reasonably have been aware of it, since the remaining bait on the property was hidden from view at the time of the hunt.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, observing that petitioners “were apparently unaware of, and had not participated in, the baiting of the field.” 747 F. 2d 1102 , 1103 (CA6 1984). Nonetheless, the panel applied prior law of the Circuit to hold that scienter is not an element of the crime charged, and thus that petitioners could be convicted even if they could not have reasonably known that the field was baited.
The rule applied is that adopted by several Circuits, reading the regulation in question to impose strict liability on those who hunt over baited fields. See, e. g., United States v. Chandler, 753 F. 2d 360, 363 (CA4 1985); United States v. Brandt, 717 F. 2d 955, 958-959 (CA6 1983); United States v. Jarman, 491 F. 2d 764, 766-767 (CA4 1974); Rogers v. United States, 367 F. 2d 998, 1001 (CA8 1966), cert. denied, 386 U. S. 943 (1967). Nevertheless, as the Court of Appeals below recognized, the rule applied here is contrary to the holding of a case from another Federal Circuit which requires proof of at least the minimum scienter, that hunters should have known of the baited condition. United States v. Delahoussaye, 573 F. 2d 910, 912 (CA5 1978).
*1075 There is a clear and recognized division between Circuits on the elements of a federal criminal offense. As the court explained in Delahoussaye , the regulation at issue here “is a national one, founded on a treaty, and [it] should not mean one thing in one state and another elsewhere.” Id., at 913 . I would grant certiorari to resolve the split among the Courts of Appeals.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
471 U.S. 1074 105 S.Ct. 2153 85 L.Ed.2d 509
Virgil Raymond CATLETT, III, et al. petitioners, v. UNITED STATES
No. 84-1209
Supreme Court of the United States
April 29, 1985
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Justice WHITE, dissenting.
1
Petitioners were convicted and fined for hunting doves in a "baited" field contrary to the Federal Migratory Bird Act, 16 U.S.C. § 703 , and the regulations issued thereunder, despite their claim that they were unaware of the baiting and that they could not reasonably have been aware of it, since the remaining bait on the property was hidden from view at the time of the hunt.
2
The Court of Appeals affirmed, observing that petitioners "were apparently unaware of, and had not participated in, the baiting of the field." 747 F.2d 1102 , 1103 (CA6 1984). Nonetheless, the panel applied prior law of the Circuit to hold that scienter is not an element of the crime charged, and thus that petitioners could be convicted even if they could not have reasonably known that the field was baited.
3
The rule applied is that adopted by several Circuits, reading the regulation in question to impose strict liability on those who hunt over baited fields. See, e.g., United States v. Chandler, 753 F.2d 360, 363 (CA4 1985); United States v. Brandt, 717 F.2d 955, 958-959 (CA6 1983); United States v. Jarman, 491 F.2d 764, 766-767 (CA4 1974); Rogers v. United States, 367 F.2d 998, 1001 (CA8 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 943 , 87 S.Ct. 976 , 17 L.Ed.2d 874 (1967). Nevertheless, as the Court of Appeals below recognized, the rule applied here is contrary to the holding of a case from another Federal Circuit which requires proof of at least the minimum scienter, that hunters should have known of the baited condition. United States v. Delahoussaye, 573 F.2d 910, 912 (CA5 1978).
4
There is a clear and recognized division between Circuits on the elements of a federal criminal offense. As the court explained in Delahoussaye , the regulation at issue here "is a national one, founded on a treaty, and [it] should not mean one thing in one state and another elsewhere." Id, at 913. I would grant certiorari to resolve the split among the Courts of Appeals.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 5 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that noncompliance with a notice of claim provision in the District of Columbia Code does not bar federal causes of action)
-
(holding that plaintiff’s noncompliance with D.C.Code § 12-309 cannot bar federal claims)
-
(noting "[t]he EPA’s rule also furthers the purpose of the Congress”)
-
(case for assimilation of § 1983 and Bivens caselaw "is especially strong” in constitutional tort actions against District of Columbia)
-
(D.C.Code § 12-309, establishing a six-month notice requirement for unliquidated damage claims against the District of Columbia, does not apply to constitutional tort claims that are creations of federal law)
Cited by 80 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals41
- Federal District Courts30
- Federal Specialty Courts1
- State Highest Courts4
- State Appellate Courts4
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Michael J. Friedrich v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
- Hacienda La Puente Unified School District Of Los Angeles v. William Honig
- United States v. Regina Kay Garrett
- American Civil Liberties Union v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Tele-Communications, Inc.
- American Civil Liberties Union v. Federal Communications Commission
- Jane Doe, a Minor Child, by Next Friend, Leslie G. Fein v. District of Columbia
Most recent
- McCain v. District of Columbia
- Saunders v. District of Columbia
- Barnhardt v. District of Columbia
- 73 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 269, 69 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,523, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1112, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1713 W.L. Hodge v. John Dalton, Officially as Secretary of the Navy
- Hodge v. Dalton
- Yankton Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.