Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Lanza

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 11, 1922

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

37 entries 4 linked 33 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Regan US Supreme Court · Jan 05, 1914
  2. United States Vs. Marigold US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1850
    Relied / Followed
  3. United States Vs. Cruikshank US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1875
  4. Ponzi Vs. Fessenden US Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1922
  5. U.S. 377 (1922) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Lanza
    Search
  6. U.S. 377 (1922) United States v. Lanza
    Search
  7. government demurred to the plea. The district court sustained the plea and dismissed the five counts. United States v. Peterson
    Search
  8. heretofore arising out of the federal Constitution. This is the ratio decidendi of our decision in Vigliotti v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  9. the other guaranties in the first eight amendments, applies only to proceedings by the federal government, Barron v. City
    Search
  10. double jeopardy. This view of the Fifth Amendment is supported by a long line of decisions by this Court. In Fox v. Ohio
    Search
  11. This conclusion was affirmed in United States v. Marigold
    Search
  12. Page 260 U. S. 384 The principle was reaffirmed in Moore v. Illinois
    Search
  13. How. 13, in United States v. Cruikshank
    Search
  14. U. S. 550 -551, in Ex Parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371 , 100 U. S. 389 , 390-391, in Cross v. North
    Search
  15. Carolina, 132 U. S. 131 , 132 U. S. 139 , in Pettibone v. United
    Search
  16. States, 148 U. S. 197 , 148 U. S. 209 , in Crossley v. California
    Search
  17. Comm'n of Indiana, 236 U. S. 439 , in Gilbert v. Minnesota
    Search
  18. U. S. 325 , 254 U. S. 330 , and, finally, in McKelvey v. United
    Search
  19. States, ante, 260 U. S. 353 . In Southern Ry. Co. v. Railroad
    Search
  20. In support of this position, numerous cases are cited, which, like Cross v. North
    Search
  21. which has held conviction in a state court a bar to prosecution for the same act under the Volstead Law. United States v. Holt
    Search
  22. United States v. Bostow
    Search
  23. United States v. Ratagczak
    Search
  24. the one which first gets jurisdiction may first exhaust its jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other. Ponzi v. Fessenden
    Search
  25. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Lanza
    Search
  26. United States v. Peterson
    Search
  27. Vigliotti v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  28. Barron v. City
    Search
  29. Court. In Fox v. Ohio
    Search
  30. Moore v. Illinois
    Search
  31. Cross v. North
    Search
  32. Pettibone v. United
    Search
  33. Crossley v. California
    Search
  34. Gilbert v. Minnesota
    Search
  35. McKelvey v. United
    Search
  36. In Southern Ry. Co. v. Railroad
    Search
  37. the Volstead Law. United States v. Holt
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial