Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Oregon Vs. Kennedy

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 24, 1982

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

59 entries 10 linked 49 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Jorn US Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1971
  2. California Vs. Krivda US Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1972
  3. Wade Vs. Hunter US Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1949
  4. illinois Vs. Somerville US Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1973
  5. United States Vs. Dinitz US Supreme Court · Mar 08, 1976
    Distinguished
  6. United States Vs. Tateo US Supreme Court · Jun 08, 1964
  7. Oregon Vs. Hass US Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1975
  8. United States Vs. Ball US Supreme Court · May 25, 1896
  9. United States Vs. Perez US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1824
  10. United States Vs. Difrancesco US Supreme Court · Dec 09, 1980
  11. U.S. 667 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Oregon v. Kennedy
    Search
  12. U.S. 667 (1982) Oregon v. Kennedy
    Search
  13. to provoke a mistrial or is 'motivated by bad faith or undertaken to harass or prejudice' the defendant. United States v. Dinitz
    Search
  14. U. S. 600 , 424 U. S. 611 . . . (1976). Accord, State v. Rathbun
    Search
  15. this case in order that the Court of Appeals may clarify the grounds upon which its judgment rested. See Delaware v. Prouse
    Search
  16. that guided its decision are decisions of this Court. The Court of Appeals' citation to State v. Rathbun
    Search
  17. the fact that the state court relied to the extent it did on federal grounds requires us to reach the merits. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard
    Search
  18. protects a criminal defendant from repeated prosecutions for the same offense. United States v. Dinitz
    Search
  19. state will vindicate its societal interest in the enforcement of the criminal laws in one proceeding. United States v. Jorn
    Search
  20. standard first enunciated in Justice Story's opinion for the Court in United States v. Perez
    Search
  21. standard, the hung jury remains the prototypical example. See, e.g., Arizona v. Washington
    Search
  22. standard has no place in the application of the Double Jeopardy Clause. United States v. Dinitz
    Search
  23. supra, at 424 U. S. 607 -610. Indeed, in United States v. Tateo
    Search
  24. there is a narrow exception to the rule that the Double Jeopardy Clause is no bar to retrial. See, e.g., United States v. DiFrancesco
    Search
  25. have been stated with less than crystal clarity in our cases which deal with this area of the law. In United State v. Dinitz
    Search
  26. This language would seem to follow the rule of United States v. Tateo
    Search
  27. United State v. Dinitz
    Search
  28. United State v. Scott
    Search
  29. a large, extent lost in the process of trial to verdict, reversal on appeal, and subsequent retrial. See United States v. Dinitz
    Search
  30. standard from the following language in the plurality opinion in United States v. Jorn
    Search
  31. Id. at 400 U. S. 485 , n. 12. There are likewise statements in United States v. Dinitz
    Search
  32. This Court held in Benton v. Maryland
    Search
  33. Cf. United State v. Tateo
    Search
  34. aside, unless the conviction has been reversed because of the insufficiency of the evidence. See, e.g., United states v. DiFrancesco
    Search
  35. s assessment as to the necessity for a mistrial in deciding questions of double jeopardy. As this Court said in Gori v. United
    Search
  36. is simply not borne out by even a moderately careful reading of our cases on the point. The footnote in United States v. Tateo
    Search
  37. The plurality opinion in United States v. Jorn
    Search
  38. the Court's opinion in United States v. Dinitz
    Search
  39. Only last Term, in United States v. DiFrancesco
    Search
  40. as that provision Page 456 U. S. 681 has been interpreted by the state courts, State v. Rathbun
    Search
  41. Ore. 421, 600 P.2d 392 (1979). See South Dakota v. Opperman
    Search
  42. U. S. 364 , 428 U. S. 396 (1976) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting), on remand, State v. Opperman
    Search
  43. We Page 456 U. S. 692 should simply decide this case on its facts, as we did in United States v. Dinitz
    Search
  44. and Lee v. United
    Search
  45. the state constitutional protection against double jeopardy to be broader than the federal provision, see State v. Rathbun
    Search
  46. U.S. Supreme Court Oregon v. Kennedy
    Search
  47. Accord, State v. Rathbun
    Search
  48. See Delaware v. Prouse
    Search
  49. State v. Rathbun
    Search
  50. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial