Citation network
United States Vs. Halper
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 15, 1989
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
-
U.S. 435 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. HalperSearch
-
U.S. 435 (1989) United States v. HalperSearch
-
applied to respondent, violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. Pp. 490 U. S. 440 -452. (a) Although Helvering v. MitchellSearch
-
U. S. 391 , United States ex rel. Marcus v. HessSearch
-
U. S. 537 , and Rex Trailer Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
the Double Jeopardy Clause's prohibition of multiple punishments. Ibid. Looking to United States ex rel. Marcus v. HessSearch
-
and multiple punishments for the same offense. See, e.g., North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
for the purpose of double jeopardy analysis. The Government argues that in three previous cases, Helvering v. MitchellSearch
-
U. S. 391 (1938), United States ex rel. Marcus v. HessSearch
-
supra, and Rex Trailer Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
in nature. In addition, the Government argues on the basis of these three cases and others, see, e.g., United States v. WardSearch
-
may nonetheless constitute punishment for the purposes of double jeopardy analysis). United States ex rel. Marcus v. HessSearch
-
punishment in violation of double jeopardy. Id. at 350 U. S. 154 . See also One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. UnitedSearch
-
for such proceedings, and in determining whether double jeopardy protections should be applied. See United States v. WardSearch
-
multiple punishment barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause, we must follow the notion where it leads. Cf. Hicks v. FeiockSearch
-
recognized in other contexts that punishment serves the twin aims of retribution and deterrence. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSearch
-
of the civil sanction the Government may receive without crossing the line between remedy and punishment. Cf. Morris v. MathewsSearch
-
Peterson v. RichardsonSearch
-
F.Supp. 1259, 1267 (ND Tex 1973), aff'd, sub nom. Peterson v. WeinbergerSearch
-
F.2d 45 (CA5), cert. denied sub nom. Peterson v. MathewsSearch
-
limited to ensuring that the total punishment did not exceed that authorized by the legislature. See, e.g., Missouri v. HunterSearch
-
for the defendant, even remedial sanctions carry the sting of punishment. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Marcus v. HessSearch
-
As the name indicates, punitive damages, available in civil cases, serve punitive goals. Day v. WoodworthSearch
-
are principally directed at social betterment, rather than punishment of culpable individuals. See United States v. BalintSearch
-
of a single proceeding focuses on whether the legislature actually authorized the cumulative punishment. See Ohio v. JohnsonSearch
-
a broad inquiry into the subjective purposes that may be thought to lie behind a given judicial proceeding. Cf. Hicks v. FeiockSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. HalperSearch
-
Although Helvering v. MitchellSearch
-
Marcus v. HessSearch
-
and Rex Trailer Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Helvering v. MitchellSearch
-
One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. UnitedSearch
-
See United States v. WardSearch
-
Cf. Hicks v. FeiockSearch
-
Cf. Morris v. MathewsSearch
-
Peterson v. RichardsonSearch
-
Peterson v. WeinbergerSearch
-
Peterson v. MathewsSearch
-
Missouri v. HunterSearch
-
See United States v. BalintSearch
-
See Ohio v. JohnsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial