Citation network
Abbate Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 30, 1959
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Abbate v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 359 U.S. 187 (1959) U.S. Supreme Court Abbate v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959) Abbate v. UnitedSearch
-
under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment by their earlier conviction in the State Court. United States v. LanzaSearch
-
state convictions, placed petitioners twice in jeopardy contrary to the Fifth Amendment, 355 U.S. 902. In Bartkus v. IllinoisSearch
-
We do not write on a clean slate in deciding this question. As early as 1820, in Houston v. MooreSearch
-
Against this background, this Court thoroughly considered the question in three cases between 1847 and 1852. In Fox v. OhioSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Page 359 U. S. 191 Supremacy Clause in order to preserve the effectiveness of federal law enforcement. Houston v. MooreSearch
-
id., 5 How. at 46 U. S. 440 . Three years later, in United States v. MarigoldSearch
-
How. at 50 U. S. 569 . The third case, Moore v. IllinoisSearch
-
consequently, this court has decided, in the case of Fox v. OhioSearch
-
uttering or passing false coin, as a cheat or fraud practised on its citizens, and, in the case of the United States v. MarigoldSearch
-
Cross v. NorthSearch
-
Pettibone v. UnitedSearch
-
Grafton v. UnitedSearch
-
Southern R. Co. v. RailroadSearch
-
and McKelvey v. UnitedSearch
-
Typical of the statements adopting the principle is that of Chief Justice Taney, on circuit, in United States v. AmySearch
-
Culminating this development was United States v. LanzaSearch
-
prohibit the acts under the Eighteenth Amendment. Thus, this case presented the situation hypothesized in Fox v. OhioSearch
-
U.S. at 260 U. S. 382 . The Lanza principle has been accepted without question in Hebert v. LouisianaSearch
-
Westfall v. UnitedSearch
-
Puerto Rico v. ShellSearch
-
Jerome v. UnitedSearch
-
Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 325 U. S. 91 , 325 U. S. 108 . And see California v. ZookSearch
-
consequences would follow if Lanza were overruled. The basic dilemma was recognized over a century ago in Fox v. OhioSearch
-
States, under our federal system, have the principal responsibility for defining and prosecuting crimes. See Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
The statute applies to conspiracies within Illinois to destroy property outside the State. See People v. BuckminsterSearch
-
given the plea of autrefois acquit when based on an acquittal by the courts of another country. United States v. FurlongSearch
-
Mattison v. StateSearch
-
and Hendrick v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Leigh, Va., 707, with, e.g., State v. RandallSearch
-
Aikens (Vt.) 89, and Harlan v. PeopleSearch
-
Rios v. UnitedSearch
-
Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
Jolley v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. LevineSearch
-
designed to protect a different federal interest. Indeed, the Government supports its argument by citing Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
Gore v. UnitedSearch
-
and Pinkerton v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 328 U. S. 640 , cases which involved only federal prosecutions, and Hoag v. NewSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial