Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Brown Vs. Ohio

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 16, 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

56 entries 6 linked 50 unlinked
Show
  1. North Carolina Vs. Pearce US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1969
  2. United States Vs. Jorn US Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1971
  3. Garner Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1961
  4. Ashe Vs. Swenson US Supreme Court · Apr 06, 1970
  5. United States Vs. Jenkins US Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1975
    Distinguished
  6. United States Vs. Ball US Supreme Court · May 25, 1896
    Distinguished
  7. U.S. 161 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Brown v. Ohio
    Search
  8. U.S. 161 (1977) Brown v. Ohio
    Search
  9. Blockburger v. United
    Search
  10. it was designed originally to embody the protection of the common law pleas of former jeopardy, see United States v. Wilson
    Search
  11. court does not exceed its legislative authorization by imposing multiple punishments for the same offense. See Gore v. United
    Search
  12. Bell v. United
    Search
  13. That policy protects the accused from attempts to relitigate the facts underlying a prior acquittal, See Ashe v. Swenson
    Search
  14. United States v. Martin
    Search
  15. S. 564 (1977), and from attempts to secure additional punishment after a prior conviction and sentence, see Green v. United
    Search
  16. North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  17. offenses are sufficiently distinguishable to permit the imposition of cumulative punishment was stated in Blockburger v. United
    Search
  18. Iannelli v. United
    Search
  19. Gavieres v. United
    Search
  20. Morey v. Commonwealth
    Search
  21. each requires proof that the other does not. Id. at 131 U. S. 188 , 131 U. S. 190 , citing Morey v. Commonwealth
    Search
  22. application of the same rule, the Court cited, 131 U.S. at 131 U. S. 190 , with approval the decision of State v. Cooper
    Search
  23. by the simple expedient of dividing a single crime into a series of temporal or spatial units. Cf. Braverman v. United
    Search
  24. Cuyahoga County prosecutions must be viewed as the acts of a single sovereign under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Waller v. Florida
    Search
  25. jeopardy questions that may arise when a defendant is retried on the same charge after a mistrial, e.g., United States v. Jorn
    Search
  26. U. S. 470 (1971), or dismissal of the indictment or information, e.g., United States v. Jenkins
    Search
  27. U. S. 358 (1975), or after a conviction is reversed on appeal, e.g., United States v. Ball
    Search
  28. separate prosecutions on closely related criminal charges when the accused opposes a consolidated trial, e.g., Jeffers v. United
    Search
  29. where the second prosecution requires the relitigation of factual issues already resolved by the first. Thus in Ashe v. Swenson
    Search
  30. robbery of each victim would have required proof in each case that a different individual had been robbed. See Ebeling v. Morgan
    Search
  31. Ashe, supra at 397 U. S. 446 , quoting from Green v. United
    Search
  32. to sustain that charge have not occurred or have not been discovered despite the exercise of due diligence. See Diaz v. United
    Search
  33. is a separate offense for each day in which a motor vehicle is operated without the owner's consent. Cf. Blockburger v. United
    Search
  34. as to violate due process. See Bouie v. City
    Search
  35. Crepps v. Durden
    Search
  36. U. S. 436 , 397 U. S. 453 -454, and n. 7 (1970) (BRENNAN, J., concurring). See Thompson v. Oklahoma
    Search
  37. that treatment. I, of course, have no quarrel with the Court's general double jeopardy analysis. See Jeffers v. United
    Search
  38. of prosecution may be a course of conduct rather than the separate segments of such a course. See, e.g., United States v. Universal
    Search
  39. U.S. Supreme Court Brown v. Ohio
    Search
  40. United States v. Wilson
    Search
  41. See Gore v. United
    Search
  42. See Ashe v. Swenson
    Search
  43. United States v. Martin
    Search
  44. Green v. United
    Search
  45. Gavieres v. United
    Search
  46. of State v. Cooper
    Search
  47. Cf. Braverman v. United
    Search
  48. the Double Jeopardy Clause. Waller v. Florida
    Search
  49. Jeffers v. United
    Search
  50. See Ebeling v. Morgan
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial