Citation network
Yeager Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 18, 2009
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
-
Yeager v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 08-67 (2009) Syllabus October Term, 2008 Yeager V. UnitedSearch
-
a) This case is controlled by the reasoning in Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
Fong Foo v. UnitedSearch
-
States , 369 U. S. 141 , 143, its finality is unassailable, see, e.g ., Arizona v. WashingtonSearch
-
b) Neither Richardson v. UnitedSearch
-
States , 468 U. S. 317 , nor United States v. PowellSearch
-
s refusal in Powell and in Dunn v. UnitedSearch
-
III and v. KennedySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and Alito, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined. Yeager v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 08-67 (2009) Opinion of the Court Yeager V. UnitedSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 08-67 F. Scott Yeager, Petitioner V. UnitedSearch
-
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. In Dunn v. UnitedSearch
-
Ibid . Relying on Circuit precedent, United States v. LarkinSearch
-
a verdict on some counts should play no role in determining the preclusive effect of an acquittal. See United States v. OhayonSearch
-
United States v. RomeoSearch
-
United States v. BailinSearch
-
United States v. FrazierSearch
-
F. 2d 878 (CA6 1989). Others have sided with the Court of Appeals. See United States v. HoweSearch
-
United States v. Aguilar-ArancetaSearch
-
United States v. WhiteSearch
-
we have decided an exceptionally large number of cases interpreting this provision, see, e.g ., United States v. DiFrancescoSearch
-
Green v. UnitedSearch
-
see Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
Richardson v. UnitedSearch
-
a mistrial and the continuation of the initial jeopardy that commenced when the jury was first impaneled. See Arizona v. WashingtonSearch
-
as the fraud charges. Our opinion in Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting Sealfon v. UnitedSearch
-
s sovereign space, see United States v. PowellSearch
-
Packet Co. v. SicklesSearch
-
see also Vaise v. DelavalSearch
-
Sanabria v. UnitedSearch
-
for which that is an essential element. III The Government relies heavily on two of our cases, Richardson v. UnitedSearch
-
States , 468 U. S. 317 , and United States v. PowellSearch
-
Washington v. ConfederatedSearch
-
Court. v. TheSearch
-
conclusive proof. See Fed. Rule Evid. 606(b). There is no reason to impose such a burden on a defendant. Yeager v. UnitedSearch
-
see Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
distinct reason Justice Alito describes. On remand, the Court of Appeals should reexamine this question. Yeager v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 08-67 (2009) Scalia, J., Dissenting Yeager V. UnitedSearch
-
The Court today holds that this proscription, as interpreted in Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 330 (1769) (emphasis added). See also Grady v. CorbinSearch
-
Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. LydonSearch
-
Arizona v. WashingtonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial