Citation network
Swisher Vs. Brady
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 28, 1978
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
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 204 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Swisher v. BradySearch
-
U.S. 204 (1978) Swisher v. BradySearch
-
Maryland officials, acting in accordance with Rule 911, from taking exceptions to a master's proposed findings. Breed v. JonesSearch
-
unfairly subjects the defendant to the embarrassment, expense, and ordeal of a second trial proscribed in Green v. UnitedSearch
-
the parties do not object -- he does so without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause's constraints. United States v. JenkinsSearch
-
United States v. ScottSearch
-
e) provision for a de novo hearing on the State's exceptions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. Aldridge v. DeanSearch
-
and the decision in Aldridge v. DeanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
A State may not put a defendant in jeopardy twice for the same offense. Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
Arizona v. WashingtonSearch
-
Burks v. UnitedSearch
-
Within the limits of jury trial rights, see McKeiver v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
a Rule 911 proceeding as two trials for double jeopardy purposes, appellees rely on two decisions of this Court, Breed v. JonesSearch
-
U. S. 519 (1975), and United States v. JenkinsSearch
-
sentences, any language in Jenkins must now be read in light of our subsequent decision in United States v. ScottSearch
-
in a conviction either not reversed on appeal or reversed because of insufficient evidence, see Burks v. UnitedSearch
-
Arizona v. WashingtonSearch
-
When the minors appealed here from this decision, we dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, Epps v. MarylandSearch
-
U.S. 809 (1974), and also denied certiorari, Anderson v. MarylandSearch
-
Court or here, that appellees' suit for injunctive relief should be dismissed under the abstention doctrine of Younger v HarrisSearch
-
we are not inclined to examine the application of the doctrine sua sponte. See Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. HodorySearch
-
to intervene and certified the class. 436 F.Supp. at 1362. We conclude that, under the principles announced in Sosna v. IowaSearch
-
The State contends that jeopardy does not attach at the hearing before the master. Our decision in Breed v. JonesSearch
-
Jesse W. v. SuperiorSearch
-
Appellees also rely on Kepner v. UnitedSearch
-
its jurisdiction was invoked by the Government's decision to appeal an otherwise binding judgment. See also Trono v. UnitedSearch
-
against double jeopardy, made applicable to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
U. S. 784 (1969), and specifically held to apply to juvenile proceedings in Breed v. JonesSearch
-
I While the first inquiry in any double jeopardy case must be whether jeopardy has attached, see Crist v. BretzSearch
-
Serfass v. UnitedSearch
-
with the Court that jeopardy does attach at the master's hearing, ante at 438 U. S. 215 n. 12. In Breed v. JonesSearch
-
U. S. 221 the evidence on which it seeks to have the determination of guilt or innocence rest. See Serfass v. UnitedSearch
-
State, supra at 420 U. S. 389 . See also Crist v. BretzSearch
-
it prevents the prosecution from seeking review or reversal of a judgment of acquittal on appeal. Kepner v. UnitedSearch
-
for terminating the first proceedings, is protected by this Clause. Wade v. HunterSearch
-
U. S. 684 , 336 U. S. 689 -690 (1949), quoting United States v. PerezSearch
-
oppression that can so easily arise from the massed power of the State in confrontation with an individual. See Green v. UnitedSearch
-
by the judge without an independent review of the entire record. Page 438 U. S. 225 (2) In Kepner v. UnitedSearch
-
S. 134 -137 (dissenting opinion), an argument that we have consistently refused to adopt, see, e.g., United States v. WilsonSearch
-
is not necessarily determined by the form of the order. United States v. MartinSearch
-
United States v. WilsonSearch
-
United States v. MartinSearch
-
justifying termination of the first proceeding. Wade v. HunterSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial