Citation network
Ball Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 26, 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
-
Ball v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 470 U.S. 856 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Ball v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 470 U.S. 856 (1985) Ball v. UnitedSearch
-
appeal, Ball challenged the validity of the consecutive sentences. The Government conceded that, under United States v. BurtonSearch
-
of Titles IV and VII, respectively, of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. E.g., United States v. BatchelderSearch
-
prosecutions, including its power to select the charges to be brought in a particular case. E.g., United States v. GoodwinSearch
-
to receiving it. This Court has consistently relied on the test of statutory construction stated in Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. WoodwardSearch
-
Albernaz v. UnitedSearch
-
Whalen v. UnitedSearch
-
Congress does not create criminal offenses having no sentencing component. See United States v. HudsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Tennessee v. DavisSearch
-
United States v. MartinSearch
-
Lewis v. UnitedSearch
-
Batchelder, 442 U.S. at Page 470 U. S. 863 442 U. S. 120 (quoting Scarborough v. UnitedSearch
-
the convictions, as well as its concurrent sentence, is unauthorized punishment for a separate offense. See Missouri v. HunterSearch
-
defendant's credibility, and certainly carries the societal stigma accompanying any criminal conviction. See Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
Sibron v. NewSearch
-
n 1, supra, established the interstate commerce connection required by the firearms statutes. See Barrett v. UnitedSearch
-
Scarborough v. UnitedSearch
-
Circuit has held that a convicted felon may be convicted and sentenced cumulatively under both statutes. United States v. LarranagaSearch
-
have concluded that the Government must elect to prosecute a convicted felon under one of the statutes. United States v. LarsonSearch
-
United States v. ConnSearch
-
United States v. GirstSearch
-
convicted felon may be convicted under both statutes, but the separate sentences must run concurrently. United States v. BurtonSearch
-
have remanded cases to the District Courts in order to vacate one of the convictions and sentences. United States v. TaylorSearch
-
a firearm on one occasion and, after giving up possession, later reacquired the gun, see, e.g., United States v. RobbinsSearch
-
or if he received and possessed different weapons at different times or in various places, see, e.g., United States v. VanceSearch
-
United States v. FilipponioSearch
-
h) and 1202(a). See, e.g., United States v. LarsonSearch
-
this congressional design, the Double Jeopardy Clause imposes no prohibition to simultaneous prosecutions. In Ohio v. JohnsonSearch
-
Indeed, in United States v. GaddisSearch
-
Cong.Rec. 21784 (1968) (remarks of Rep. Celler). As the Court observed in Barrett v. UnitedSearch
-
of Sen. Long). For a concise review of Title VII's surprisingly swift passage through the Congress, see Scarborough v. UnitedSearch
-
This appears to be the import of the Government's concession in Taylor v. UnitedSearch
-
Memorandum for United States in Taylor v. UnitedSearch
-
the defendant by employing such tactics. The views that JUSTICE MARSHALL expressed in his dissent in Missouri v. HunterSearch
-
not be submitted to the jury if the element that distinguishes the two offenses is not in dispute. See, e.g., Sansone v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. TsanasSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Ball v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. BurtonSearch
-
E.g., United States v. BatchelderSearch
-
E.g., United States v. GoodwinSearch
-
Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
See United States v. HudsonSearch
-
See Missouri v. HunterSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial