Citation network
Lewis Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 09, 1998
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
-
Lewis v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 523 U.S. 155 (1998) October Term, 1997 Syllabus Lewis V. UnitedSearch
-
applicable on federal enclaves, and would conflict with the ACA's history and features. See, e. g., Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
cf. Rutledge v. UnitedSearch
-
is one of borrowing state law to fill gaps in the federal criminal law that applies on federal enclaves. See Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. PressSearch
-
Franklin v. UnitedSearch
-
courts lacked the power to supplement these few statutory crimes through the use of the common law. See United States v. HudsonSearch
-
murder example above. See, e. g., United States v. KaufmanSearch
-
Fields v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. BrownSearch
-
abuse different in kind from generic federal assault, and so state law could be assimilated). But see United States v. ChausseeSearch
-
as those made criminal by the relevant state law. See, e. g., United States v. JohnsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
law in question, say, because its application would interfere with the achievement of a federal policy, see John son v. YellowSearch
-
or where differences amount only to those of name, definitional language, or punishment. See, e. g., United States v. AdamsSearch
-
statute to fill-unless Congress, through the comprehensiveness of its regulation, cf. Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. MortierSearch
-
see 166 Williams, supra, at 724-725, indicates to the contrary in a particular case. See also Johnson v. YellowSearch
-
Blackburn v. UnitedSearch
-
see also United States v. SharpnackSearch
-
see, e. g., United States v. BrownSearch
-
United States v. FeslerSearch
-
see also Koon v. UnitedSearch
-
test, see, e. g., United States v. KaufmanSearch
-
practice is no test at all but an appeal to vague policy intuitions. 175 See, e. g., United States v. BrownSearch
-
But we held in Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
for double jeopardy purposes, whenever each contains an element that the other does not. See, e. g., Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
Thus, for example, double jeopardy law treats greater and lesser included offenses as the same, see, e. g., Harris v. OklahomaSearch
-
a technical meaning that reflects our double jeopardy traditions, see Grady v. CorbinSearch
-
of the common law. Indeed, the original ACA was at least in part a response to our decision in United States v. HudsonSearch
-
upon which they rest. A central tenet of federalism is concurrent jurisdiction over many subjects. See McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
be subject to the criminal laws of both state and federal sovereigns for the same act or course of conduct. See Heath v. AlabamaSearch
-
at hand for this purpose, and it is the Blockburger test we use in double jeopardy law. See Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
see also Missouri v. HunterSearch
-
in which the ACA differs from double jeopardy law is compelled by our own precedent interpreting the ACA. See Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
Syllabus Lewis V. UnitedSearch
-
Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
Rutledge v. UnitedSearch
-
See Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
See United States v. HudsonSearch
-
United States v. ChausseeSearch
-
United States v. JohnsonSearch
-
United States v. AdamsSearch
-
Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. MortierSearch
-
Johnson v. YellowSearch
-
Koon v. UnitedSearch
-
Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
Harris v. OklahomaSearch
-
See McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial