Citation network
Ashe Vs. Swenson
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
-
U.S. 436 (1970) U.S. Supreme Court Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
U.S. 436 (1970) Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
had violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The District Court denied the writ, relying on Hoag v. NewSearch
-
held that there was no violation of due process. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Thereafter, this Court, in Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
effect, North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy, applicable here through the Fourteenth Amendment by virtue of Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
and remanded. Page 397 U. S. 437 MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court. In Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
State v. AsheSearch
-
A collateral attack upon the conviction in the state courts five years later was also unsuccessful. State v. AsheSearch
-
had violated his right not to be twice put in jeopardy. Considering itself bound by this court's decision in Hoffa v. NewSearch
-
The Court Page 397 U. S. 441 of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, also upon the authority of Hoag v. NewSearch
-
Court and the Court of Appeals correctly noted, the operative facts here are virtually identical to those of Hoag v. viewSearch
-
estoppel is an ingredient of the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy. The doctrine of Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
the issues in the present case in a perspective quite different from that, in which the issues were perceived in Hoffa v. NewSearch
-
but a matter of constitutional fact we must decide through an examination of the entire record. Cf. New York Times Co. v. SullivanSearch
-
established rule of federal criminal law at least since this Court's decision more than 50 years ago in United States v. OppenheimerSearch
-
United States v. KramerSearch
-
Sealfon v. UnitedSearch
-
the robbery of Roberts wholly impermissible. The ultimate question to be determined, then, in the light of Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
For whatever else that Page 397 U. S. 446 constitutional guarantee may embrace, North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
a second time. Green v. UnitedSearch
-
of the Court's decision in Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
In North. Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
Coffey v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. CurzioSearch
-
Yawn v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. CowartSearch
-
New Trials and Successive Prosecutions, 74 Harv.L.Rev. 1, 38-39. See Yawn v. UnitedSearch
-
It is true, as this Court said in Hoag v. NewSearch
-
basis was a constitutional one was a question of no more than academic concern until this Court's decision in Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
a defendant to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for the same alleged offense. Bartkus v. IllinoisSearch
-
Abbate v. UnitedSearch
-
Green v. UnitedSearch
-
this case under the traditional standards of Fourteenth Amendment due process, I would adhere to the decision in Hoag v. NewSearch
-
it would have been open to a state court to treat the issue differently. However, having acceded in North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
U. S. 711 , 395 U. S. 744 (1969), to the decision in Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited Missouri from prosecuting petitioner for each robbery at a different trial. Abbate v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 196 -201 (1959) (separate opinion). My conclusion is not precluded by the Court's decision in Hoag v. NewSearch
-
because Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
is enforceable against the States, and North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
of a claim of double jeopardy depending on whether the claim was asserted in a state or federal court. Cf. Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity. . . . Green v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial