Citation network
United States Vs. Dixon
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 02, 1992
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. 688 (1992) October Term, 1992 Syllabus United States V. DixonSearch
-
two cases on appeal and ruled that both subsequent prosecutions were barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause under Grady v. CorbinSearch
-
test. See, e. g., Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
not establish even minimal antecedents for the Grady rule. In contrast, two post-Nielsen cases, Gavieres v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 220 U. S. 338 , 343, and Burton v. UnitedSearch
-
test) was satisfied. Moreover, the Grady rule has already proved unstable in application, see United States v. FelixSearch
-
of the violated condition. Harris v. OklahomaSearch
-
Jeopardy Clause under this Court's successive prosecution decisions (from In re Nielsen, 131 U. S. 176, to Grady v. CorbinSearch
-
consoli- 694 dated the two cases, reheard them en banc, and, relying on our recent decision in Grady v. CorbinSearch
-
That limitation was closely followed in American courts. See United States v. HudsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Act of March 2, 1831, 4 Stat. 487-488. See Bloom v. IllinoisSearch
-
civil or criminal law, it would not enjoin violation of civil or criminal law as such. See, e. g., Sparhawk v. UnionSearch
-
Attorney General v. UticaSearch
-
did not bar a subsequent prosecution for a criminal offense based on the same conduct. See, e. g., King v. LordSearch
-
State v. YancySearch
-
both to successive punishments and to successive prosecutions for the same criminal offense. See North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
apply in nonsummary criminal contempt prosecutions just as they do in other criminal prosecutions. See, e. g., Gompers v. BucksSearch
-
Cooke v. UnitedSearch
-
think it obvious, and today hold, that the protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause likewise attaches. Accord, Menna v. NewSearch
-
Colombo v. NewSearch
-
test, the double jeopardy bar applies. See, e. g., Brown v. OhioSearch
-
Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
Gavieres v. UnitedSearch
-
until a 1 State v. YancySearch
-
prosecute Dixon for the drug offense resembles the situation that produced our judgment of double jeopardy in Harris v. OklahomaSearch
-
U. S. 410 , 420-421 (1980). Accord, Whalen v. UnitedSearch
-
Bloom, 391 U. S., at 208. The Government also relies upon In re Chapman, 166 U. S. 661 (1897), and Jurney v. MacCrackenSearch
-
accord, Parker v. UnitedSearch
-
simple assault does not.6 See Logan v. UnitedSearch
-
irrelevant for double jeopardy analysis does have precedentalbeit erroneous-in Grady's same-conduct test. Grady v. CorbinSearch
-
of a District of Columbia law adopted by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. See, e. g., Pernell v. SouthallSearch
-
consider whether they are barred by the new, additional double jeopardy test we announced three Terms ago in Grady v. CorbinSearch
-
to be applied in determining the double jeopardy effect of criminal charges based on the same conduct (Block burger vs. GradySearch
-
earlier Supreme Court precedent and with the clear common-law understanding of double jeopardy. See, e. g., Gavieres v. UnitedSearch
-
serves the function of preventing both successive punishment and successive prosecution, see, e. g., North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
Post, at 747. The collateral-estoppel effect attributed to the Double Jeopardy Clause, see Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
incident to a 706 His second case comes almost a century later. Brown v. OhioSearch
-
multiple times, see post, at 748, 754, cannot convert it into case law. See United States Nat. Bank of Ore. v. IndependentSearch
-
SOUTER, there are two pre-Grady (and post Nielsen) cases that are directly on point. In both Gavieres v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 220 U. S., at 343, and Burton v. UnitedSearch
-
the Court upheld subse- 11 There is, for example, no other way to read the following passage in Illinois v. VitaleSearch
-
to make a precedent. JusTICE WHITE then seeks to neutralize the precedent by offering still another case, Grafton v. UnitedSearch
-
it has already proved unstable in application. Less than two years after it came down, in United States v. FelixSearch
-
See post, at 747, 761. Of course, the same-transaction test, long espoused by Justice Brennan, see, e. g., Brown v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 161 , 170 (1977) (concurring opinion), has been consistently rejected by the Court. See, e. g., Garrett v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial