Citation network
Waller Vs. Florida
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 06, 1970
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 387 (1970) U.S. Supreme Court Waller v. FloridaSearch
-
U.S. 387 (1970) Waller v. FloridaSearch
-
prevent the second trial, asserting the claim of double jeopardy as a bar. Relief was denied without opinion. Waller v. CircuitSearch
-
larceny, he had been convicted by the municipal court of an included offense of the crime of grand larceny. Waller v. StateSearch
-
in the proper state court. This has been the law of this state since 1894, as is established in the case of Theisen v. McDavidSearch
-
has followed the Theisen case, supra, throughout the years, and, as recently as July 17, 1968, in Hilliard v. CitySearch
-
Emphasis added.) A petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida was denied, Waller v. StateSearch
-
that the Florida trial court and the District Court of Appeal considered themselves bound by the doctrine of Theisen v. McDavidSearch
-
Fla. 440, 16 So. 321, which, at that time, was being reasserted in Hilliard v. CitySearch
-
power of the two courts within one State to place petitioner on trial for the same alleged crime. In Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
this Court declared the double jeopardy provisions of the Fifth Amendment applicable to the States, overruling Palko v. ConnecticutSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 319 (1937). Here, as Page 397 U. S. 391 in North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
between a State and the Federal Government. Florida's chief reliance is placed upon this Court's holdings in Bartkus v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 121 (1959), and Abbate v. UnitedSearch
-
a Territory and the Government of the United States. The legal consequence of that relationship was settled in Grafton v. UnitedSearch
-
challenge, this Court reversed, resting upon the single sovereign rationale and distinguishing cases like Fox v. OhioSearch
-
U.S. at 206 U. S. 354 -355. Thus, Grafton, not Fox v. OhioSearch
-
supra, or its progeny, Bartkus v. IllinoisSearch
-
supra, or Abbate v. UnitedSearch
-
joins the opinion of the Court, but nonetheless adheres to the views expressed in his dissenting opinions in Bartkus v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 121 , 359 U. S. 150 (1959), and Abbate v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 784 (1969), controls any case which arises in its ambit. See Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
post, p. 397 U. S. 436 n. 1. Nonetheless, when this Court granted certiorari in Price v. GeorgiaSearch
-
question of retroactivity of Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
U.S. 975 (1969). By our decisions in the instant case and in Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
supra, we do not resolve, with respect to the circumstances presented in Price v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Pike v. CitySearch
-
United States v. FarwellSearch
-
McInerney v. CitySearch
-
State v. MusserSearch
-
People v. BehymerSearch
-
State v. GarciaSearch
-
Earwood v. StateSearch
-
State v. CliffordSearch
-
State v. EndSearch
-
May v. TownSearch
-
State v. GarnerSearch
-
State v. AmickSearch
-
State v. SimpsonSearch
-
Koch v. StateSearch
-
McCann v. StateSearch
-
Miller v. HansenSearch
-
Webster v. KnewelSearch
-
State v. TuckerSearch
-
City of Milwaukee v. JohnsonSearch
-
State v. JacksonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial