Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Smalis Vs. Pennsylvania

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 05, 1986

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

30 entries 3 linked 27 unlinked
Show
  1. Hudson Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1981
  2. Arizona Vs. Rumsey US Supreme Court · May 29, 1984
  3. United States Vs. Jenkins US Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1975
  4. U.S. 140 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Smalis v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  5. U.S. 140 (1986) Smalis v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  6. sustain a guilty verdict constitutes an acquittal for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. See, e.g., United States v. Martin
    Search
  7. Burks v. United
    Search
  8. Sanabria v. United
    Search
  9. United States v. Scott
    Search
  10. Martin Linen. The Commonwealth appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which reversed. Commonwealth v. Zoller
    Search
  11. The court relied heavily on the statement in United States v. Scott
    Search
  12. Commonwealth v. Zoller
    Search
  13. at this time, hold that such a ruling is an acquittal under the Double Jeopardy Clause. See, e.g., United States v. Martin
    Search
  14. The Commonwealth argues that its appeal is nonetheless permissible under Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon
    Search
  15. to postacquittal factfinding proceedings going to guilt or innocence violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. Arizona v. Rumsey
    Search
  16. Court, petitioners' case was consolidated with another case presenting the same double jeopardy issue, Commonwealth v. Zoller
    Search
  17. Harris v. Washington
    Search
  18. U. S. 55 (1971). As explained in Abney v. United
    Search
  19. Burks v. United
    Search
  20. U.S. at 437 U. S. 98 (quoting id. at 437 U. S. 106 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting)). Accord, Sanabria v. United
    Search
  21. The Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred a second sentencing hearing. It distinguished United States v. Wilson
    Search
  22. standard which the Superior Court quoted from Martin Linen was first articulated in United States v. Jenkins
    Search
  23. U. S. 358 , 420 U. S. 370 (1975), does not detract from its authority. United States v. Scott
    Search
  24. U.S. Supreme Court Smalis v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  25. United States v. Martin
    Search
  26. Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon
    Search
  27. the Double Jeopardy Clause. Arizona v. Rumsey
    Search
  28. Abney v. United
    Search
  29. Accord, Sanabria v. United
    Search
  30. United States v. Wilson
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial