Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Standefer Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 09, 1980

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

78 entries 2 linked 76 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Hartwell US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1867
  2. United States Vs. Dotterweich US Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1943
  3. Standefer v. United
    Search
  4. States - 447 U.S. 10 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Standefer v. United
    Search
  5. States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980) Standefer v. United
    Search
  6. instead, all parties to a misdemeanor, whatever their roles, were principals. United States v. Dotterweich
    Search
  7. of the actual perpetrator did not prevent the subsequent conviction of a person who rendered assistance. Queen v. Humphreys
    Search
  8. Queen v. Burton
    Search
  9. in the second degree could be convicted notwithstanding the prior acquittal of the first-degree principal. King v. Taylor
    Search
  10. Queen v. Wallis
    Search
  11. Brown v. State
    Search
  12. State v. Whitt
    Search
  13. Queen v. Hughes
    Search
  14. Hammer v. United
    Search
  15. It emerged in a civil case in 1942, Bernhard v. Bank
    Search
  16. Assn., 19 Cal.2d 807, 122 P.2d 892. This Court first applied the doctrine in Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University
    Search
  17. be estopped from relitigating those issues in a subsequent action brought by a private plaintiff. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
    Search
  18. and it cannot secure appellate review where a defendant has been acquitted. See United States v. Ball
    Search
  19. Dunn v. United
    Search
  20. States, 284 U. S. 390 , 284 U. S. 393 (1932), quoting Steckler v. United
    Search
  21. Alderman v. United
    Search
  22. States, 394 U. S. 165 , 394 U. S. 171 -172 (1969). Accord, Rakas v. Illinois
    Search
  23. Commissioner v. Sunnen
    Search
  24. Offutt v. United
    Search
  25. Roth v. United
    Search
  26. S. 492 , n. 30 (1957). While symmetry of results may be intellectually satisfying, it is not required. See Hamling v. United
    Search
  27. His convictions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. United States v. Niederberger
    Search
  28. Circuit, and the District of Columbia Circuit have reached the same conclusion as the Third Circuit. See United States v. Musgrave
    Search
  29. United States v. Azadian
    Search
  30. Perkins v. United
    Search
  31. Gray v. United
    Search
  32. United States v. Shuford
    Search
  33. F.2d 772, 779 (1971). Accord, United States v. Prince
    Search
  34. People v. Bearss
    Search
  35. State v. Lee
    Search
  36. State v. Bogue
    Search
  37. Commonwealth v. Hicks
    Search
  38. Fleming v. State
    Search
  39. People v. Kief
    Search
  40. State v. Gifford
    Search
  41. Roberts v. People
    Search
  42. Butts v. State
    Search
  43. West 1974) ( see State v. McAllister
    Search
  44. (State v. Rice
    Search
  45. State v. Massey
    Search
  46. four States -- Maryland, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Tennessee -- clearly retain the common law bar. See State v. Ward
    Search
  47. State v. Jones
    Search
  48. Pierce v. State
    Search
  49. of an aider and abettor notwithstanding the prior acquittal of the perpetrator of the offense. See United States v. Klass
    Search
  50. Von Patzoll v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial