Citation network
United States Vs. Oppenheimer
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 04, 1916
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. 85 (1916) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. OppenheimerSearch
-
U.S. 85 (1916) United States v. OppenheimerSearch
-
for the same offence was barred by the statute of limitations, held, in substance, a plea in bar. United States v. BarberSearch
-
are based upon the invalidity or construction of the statutes upon which the indictments are founded. United States v. KeitelSearch
-
U. S. 370 , and United States v. KisselSearch
-
an adjudication since held to be wrong in another case. United States v. RabinowichSearch
-
this writ of error, treating the so-called motion to quash as a plea in bar, which in substance it was. United States v. BarberSearch
-
in each of the two preceding paragraphs of the statute, is not repeated here. The language used in United States v. KeitelSearch
-
statute, in cases brought up by the United States under the earlier clauses of the act. That quoted from United States v. KisselSearch
-
or that it is conclusive if entered upon the general issue ( United States v. KisselSearch
-
doubted that a judgment upon a demurrer to the merits would be a bar to a second indictment in the same words. State v. FieldsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of substantive law is as good as another. A plea of the statute of limitations is a plea to the merits ( United States v. BarberSearch
-
Hawkins, J., in The Queen v. MilesSearch
-
The finality of a previous adjudication as to the matters determined by it is the ground of decision in Commonwealth v. EvansSearch
-
Mass. 25, the criminal and the civil law agreeing, as Mr. Justice Hawkins says. Commonwealth v. EllisSearch
-
Brittain v. KinnairdSearch
-
Brod. & B. 432. Seemingly the same view was taken in Frank v. MangumSearch
-
U. S. 309 , 237 U. S. 334 , as it was also in Coffey v. UnitedSearch
-
Amendment was not intended to do away with what, in the civil law, is a fundamental principle of justice ( Jeter v. HewittSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. OppenheimerSearch
-
and United States v. KisselSearch
-
United States v. KisselSearch
-
State v. FieldsSearch
-
The Queen v. MilesSearch
-
Commonwealth v. EvansSearch
-
Commonwealth v. EllisSearch
-
Coffey v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. BarberSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial