Citation network
Hudson Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Oct 08, 1997
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
-
Hudson v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 522 U.S. 93 (1997) October Term, 1997 Syllabus Hudson Et Al. V. UnitedSearch
-
The District Court ultimately dismissed the indictments, but the Court of Appeals reversed, relying on United States v. HalperSearch
-
only against the imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense. See, e. g., Helvering v. MitchellSearch
-
in nature, see, e. g., United States v. WardSearch
-
The Court thereby elevated to dispositive status one of the factors listed in Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSearch
-
were so punitive in form and effect as to render them criminal despite Congress' contrary intent, see United States v. UrserySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Helvering, supra, at 399, and n. 2, 400, and neither involves an affirmative disability or restraint, see Flemming v. NestorSearch
-
criminally punitive, Ursery, supra, at 292, particularly in the double jeopardy context, see United States v. DixonSearch
-
civil, not criminal. Our reasons for so holding in large part disavow the method of analysis used in United States v. HalperSearch
-
U. S. 435 , 448 (1989), and reaffirm the previously established rule exemplified in United States v. WardSearch
-
We have long recognized that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the imposition of 4 E. g., Zukas v. HinsonSearch
-
E. B. v. VernieroSearch
-
Jones v. SecuritiesSearch
-
United States v. HatfieldSearch
-
Taylor v. CisnerosSearch
-
United States v. GalanSearch
-
be described as punishment. United States ex rel. Marcus v. HessSearch
-
U. S. 537 , 549 (1943) (quoting Moore v. IllinoisSearch
-
The Clause protects only against the imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense, Helvering v. MitchellSearch
-
and then only when such occurs in successive proceedings, see Missouri v. HunterSearch
-
Rex Trailer Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 350 U. S. 148 , 154 (1956). In making this latter determination, the factors listed in Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSearch
-
a criminal penalty, Ward, supra, at 249 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our opinion in United States v. HalperSearch
-
We have since recognized that all civil penalties have some deterrent effect. See Department of Revenue of Mont. v. KurthSearch
-
and Equal Protection Clauses already protect individuals from sanctions which are downright irrational. Williamson v. LeeSearch
-
U. S. 483 (1955). The Eighth Amendment protects against excessive civil fines, including forfeitures. Alexander v. UnitedSearch
-
Austin v. UnitedSearch
-
Wong Wing v. UnitedSearch
-
criminally punitive, Ursery, 518 U. S., at 292, particularly in the double jeopardy context, see United States v. DixonSearch
-
see also Bennis v. MichiganSearch
-
of trying to force the Halper analysis upon the Montana tax scheme at issue in Department of Revenue of Mont. v. KurthSearch
-
anything in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, would require a reexamination of the central holding in United States v. HalperSearch
-
sentence of the Court's opinion, this is an extremely easy case. It has been settled since the decision in Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
for which a defendant has previously been punished. See, e. g., United States v. DixonSearch
-
Rutledge v. UnitedSearch
-
it also has nothing to say about that court's explanation of why the reasoning in our opinion in United States v. HalperSearch
-
of New Jersey's novel, controversial 2 Petitioners challenge this conclusion by relying on dicta from Kansas v. HendricksSearch
-
This statement, pure dictum, was unsupported by any authority and contradicts the earlier ruling in United States v. DixonSearch
-
E. B. v. PoritzSearch
-
F. Supp. 85 (NJ 1996), rev'd, E. B. v. VernieroSearch
-
I do agree with its reaffirmation of the central holding of Halper and Department of Revenue of Mont. v. KurthSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial