Citation network
Koon Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 13, 1996
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
-
Koon v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 518 U.S. 81 (1996) October Term, 1995 Syllabus Koon V. UnitedSearch
-
Together with No. 94-8842, Powell v. UnitedSearch
-
to vest in appellate courts wide-ranging authority over district court sentencing decisions. See, e. g., Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
be due substantial deference, for it embodies the sentencing court's traditional exercise of discretion. See Mistretta v. UnitedSearch
-
adoption of the abuseof-discretion standard of review, not de novo review. See, e. g., Cooter & Gell v. HartmarxSearch
-
judges enjoyed broad discretion in determining whether and how long an offender should be incarcerated. Mistretta v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. RiveraSearch
-
criminal sentence within statutory limits was, for all practical purposes, not reviewable on appeal. Dorszynski v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
in Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
Id., at 205 (quoting Solem v. HelmSearch
-
at 951. Considerations like these persuaded us to adopt the abuse-of-discretion standard in Cooter & Gell v. HartmarxSearch
-
U. S. 384 (1990), which involved review of a District Court's imposition of Rule 11 sanctions, and in Pierce v. UnderwoodSearch
-
Pierce, supra, at 559-560 (quoting Miller v. FentonSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting Graham v. ConnorSearch
-
Burns v. UnitedSearch
-
be to transgress the policymaking authority vested in the Commission. An example is helpful. In United States v. LaraSearch
-
system in some instances. Successive state and federal prosecutions do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. Heath v. AlaSearch
-
at 790. The state trial was lengthy, and the toll it took is not beyond the cognizance of the District Court. 113 V TheSearch
-
constituting the crimes for which petitioners had been prosecuted unsuccessfully in the state court. See Powell v. SuperiorSearch
-
United States v. DavisSearch
-
rights where state law enforce- 119 ment efforts had proved inadequate. See, e. g., Ngiraingas v. SanchezSearch
-
Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
Syllabus KOON v. UNITEDSearch
-
Powell v. UnitedSearch
-
Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
See Mistretta v. UnitedSearch
-
Cooter & Gell v. HartmarxSearch
-
Mistretta v. UnitedSearch
-
Dorszynski v. UnitedSearch
-
Miller v. FentonSearch
-
In United States v. LaraSearch
-
the Double Jeopardy Clause. Heath v. AlaSearch
-
See Powell v. SuperiorSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial