Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Heath Vs. Alabama

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 03, 1985

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

65 entries 7 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. Crowell Vs. Randell US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1836
  2. illinois Vs. Vitale US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1980
  3. United States Vs. Lanza US Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1922
  4. United States Vs. Cruikshank US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1875
  5. Ciucci Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · May 19, 1958
  6. Stevens Vs. Marks US Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1966
  7. Bank of United States Vs. Daniel US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1838
  8. U.S. 82 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Heath v. Alabama
    Search
  9. U.S. 82 (1985) Heath v. Alabama
    Search
  10. Page 474 U. S. 87 whether petitioner's Alabama conviction was barred by this Court's decision in Brown v. Ohio
    Search
  11. or passed upon in the state court, as has sometimes been stated, see, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Duel
    Search
  12. Court will not consider such claims creates, at the least, a weighty presumption against review. See, e.g., Illinois v. Gates
    Search
  13. offense under Brown v. Ohio
    Search
  14. U. S. 377 , 260 U. S. 382 (1922). As the Court explained in Moore v. Illinois
    Search
  15. the two entities draw their authority to punish the offender from distinct sources of power. See, e.g., United States v. Wheeler
    Search
  16. Puerto Rico v. Page
    Search
  17. Grafton v. United
    Search
  18. not from the Federal Government. Wheeler, supra, at 435 U. S. 320 , n. 14. See Abbate v. United
    Search
  19. Bartkus v. Illinois
    Search
  20. Westfall v. United
    Search
  21. Coyle v. Oklahoma
    Search
  22. U. S. 559 , 221 U. S. 567 (1911). See Skiriotes v. Florida
    Search
  23. the realm of successive federal and state prosecutions illustrate the soundness of this analysis. United States v. Wheeler
    Search
  24. federalist system, that constitutes the basis for the dual sovereignty doctrine. Petitioner argues that Nielsen v. Oregon
    Search
  25. the meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause if they are prosecuted by different sovereigns. See, e.g., United Skates v. Lanza
    Search
  26. balancing of interests approach. The Court has refused a similar request on at least one previous occasion, see Abbate v. United
    Search
  27. to it, and neither sovereign with respect to the objects committed to the other. Page 474 U. S. 93 McCulloch v. Maryland
    Search
  28. distinct and sovereign, and consequently foreign to each other.' Bank of United States v. Daniel
    Search
  29. Pet. 32, 37 U. S. 54 (1838). See also Skiriotes v. Florida
    Search
  30. prerogatives of sovereignty is the power to create and enforce a criminal code. See, e.g., Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto
    Search
  31. within the meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause. In Abbate v. United
    Search
  32. the Government's theory might work by referring to In re Nielsen, 131 U. S. 176 (1889). Abbate v. United
    Search
  33. by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. Maryland
    Search
  34. any reasonable constitutional standard, offend the bar to successive prosecutions for the same offense. See Brown v. Ohio
    Search
  35. Moore v. Illinois
    Search
  36. should recognize this exegesis of the Clause as, at best, a useful fiction and, at worst, a dangerous one. See Bartkus v. Illinois
    Search
  37. overlap at times, and even where they do not, different interests may be implicated by a single act. See, e.g., Abbate v. United
    Search
  38. a defendant's interest in avoiding successive prosecutions or multiple punishments for the same crime. See Screws v. United
    Search
  39. Abbate v. United
    Search
  40. U. S. 542 , 92 U. S. 551 (1876). See Moore v. Illinois
    Search
  41. Nielsen v. Oregon
    Search
  42. barred both governments from combining to do together what each could not constitutionally do on its own. See Murphy v. Waterfront
    Search
  43. Elkins v. United
    Search
  44. Georgia with his plea would merely continue their efforts to secure his death in another jurisdiction. Cf. Santobello v. New
    Search
  45. U.S. Supreme Court Heath v. Alabama
    Search
  46. Brown v. Ohio
    Search
  47. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Duel
    Search
  48. See Abbate v. United
    Search
  49. See Skiriotes v. Florida
    Search
  50. United Skates v. Lanza
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial