Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Rinaldi Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 07, 1977

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

47 entries 1 linked 46 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Cox US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1837
  2. Rinaldi v. United
    Search
  3. States - 434 U.S. 22 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Rinaldi v. United
    Search
  4. States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977) Rinaldi v. United
    Search
  5. Government's policy against multiple prosecutions for the same act (the so-called Petite policy based on Petite v. United
    Search
  6. been obtained in violation of a longstanding federal policy against multiple prosecutions for the same act. See Petite v. United
    Search
  7. represents the Government's response to repeated expressions of concern by Members of this Court. In United States v. Lanza
    Search
  8. S. 377 , 260 U. S. 383 (1922), for example, Mr. Chief Justice Taft quoted the following passage from Fox v. Ohio
    Search
  9. Petite policy was formulated by the Justice Department in direct response to this Court's opinions in Bartkus v. Illinois
    Search
  10. U. S. 121 (1959), and Abbate v. United
    Search
  11. with the greater interest is not the first to proceed, the administration of criminal justice may suffer. Bartkus v. Illinois
    Search
  12. Abbate v. United
    Search
  13. leave if the Government's decision to terminate this prosecution clearly disserved the public interest. United States v. Cowan
    Search
  14. to commit grand larceny was reversed on appeal. His convictions on the other two counts were affirmed. See Scaldeferri v. State
    Search
  15. So.2d 407 (Fla.App.), cert. denied sub nom. Pompeo v. State
    Search
  16. So.2d 21 (Fla.), cert. denied sub nom. Washington v. Florida
    Search
  17. we have granted the Government's motion on several occasions. See Watts v. United
    Search
  18. Ackerson v. United
    Search
  19. Hayles v. United
    Search
  20. Cf. Redmond v. United
    Search
  21. Marakar v. United
    Search
  22. Petite v. United
    Search
  23. when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant's objection. See, e.g., United States v. Cox
    Search
  24. F.2d 167, 171 (CA5), cert. denied sub nom. Cox v. Hauberg
    Search
  25. Woodring v. United
    Search
  26. States, 311 F.2d 417, 424 (CA), cert. denied sub nom. Felice v. United
    Search
  27. has consented if the motion is prompted by considerations clearly contrary to the public interest. See United States v. Cowan
    Search
  28. United States v. Ammidown
    Search
  29. by the record in this case. MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, with whom MR. JUSTICE WHITE joins, dissenting. In Watts v. United
    Search
  30. Solicitor General that the Justice Department had accidentally violated its own Petite policy. See also Ackerson v. United
    Search
  31. toward an independent judicial assessment of the public interest in dismissing the indictment. Cf. United States v. Cowan
    Search
  32. U.S. Supreme Court Rinaldi v. United
    Search
  33. See Petite v. United
    Search
  34. Court. In United States v. Lanza
    Search
  35. Fox v. Ohio
    Search
  36. and Abbate v. United
    Search
  37. United States v. Cowan
    Search
  38. See Scaldeferri v. State
    Search
  39. Pompeo v. State
    Search
  40. Washington v. Florida
    Search
  41. See Watts v. United
    Search
  42. Cox v. Hauberg
    Search
  43. Felice v. United
    Search
  44. See United States v. Cowan
    Search
  45. In Watts v. United
    Search
  46. Cf. United States v. Cowan
    Search
  47. Bartkus v. Illinois
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial