skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Search for:
All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

Your query double and jeopardy returned 24 results.

1000
[Syllabus]
979 MONGE V. CALIFORNIA, 524 U.S. 721 (1998)
[Syllabus]
943 SATTAZAHN V. PENNSYLVANIA
[Syllabus]
Neither the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause nor the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause barred Pennsylvania from seeking the death penalty against petitioner on retrial when he was given a life sentence at his first trial.
927
[Syllabus]
834 UNITED STATES V. URSERY, 518 U.S. 267 (1996).
[Syllabus]
834 WITTE V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 389 (1995).
[Syllabus]
830 PRICE V. VINCENT
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Michigan Supreme Court's conclusion that the trial court did not direct a verdict of acquittal is a factual finding entitled to deference on habeas corpus review. 2. Whether Defendant Vincent was twice placed in jeopardy by the action of the trial court in first granting a motion for directed verdict on the issue of first degree murder, and shortly thereafter withdrawing its grant, where both the initial decision and its recall occurred out of the presence of the jury. 3. Whether this Court should grant certiorari to clarify the jurisprudence where there is a split of opinion within the United States Courts of Appeals and within the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and State Courts on the question of whether double jeopardy principles were violated in factually similar situations.
782 RENICO V. LETT
[Syllabus]
782 SELING V. YOUNG
[Syllabus]
In Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), this Court held that the Kansas law authorizing commitment of sexually violent predators is civil in nature and does not violate the double jeopardy or ex post facto clauses. The Kansas law was modeled on Washington's Sexually Violent Predator Statute: Whether an otherwise valid civil statute can be divested of its civil nature and held to violate the double jeopardy and ex post facto clauses because the administrative agency operating the commitment facility fails to provide for treatment and other conditions of confinement mandated by statute at some time during the individual's commitment."
782 UNITED STATES V. LARA
[Syllabus]
Whether Section 1301, as amended, of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301, validly restores an Indian tribe's sovereign power to prosecute members of other tribes, such that a federal prosecution following a tribal prosecution for an offense with the same elements is valid under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment.
721
[Syllabus]
721 HUDSON V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 93 (1997)
[Syllabus]
713 BOBBY V. BIES
[Syllabus]
681 SMITH V. MASSACHUSETTS
[Syllabus]
681 YEAGER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
645 KANSAS V. HENDRICKS, 117 S.CT. 2072, 138 L.ED.2D 501 (1997).
[Syllabus]
556
[Syllabus]
439
[Syllabus]
439 TEXAS V. COBB
[Syllabus]
Because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is "offense specific," it does not necessarily extend to crimes that are "factually related" to those that have actually been charged.
278 UNITED STATES V. SANTOS
[Syllabus]
278
[Syllabus]
278
[Syllabus]
278 CLINTON V. GOLDSMITH
[Syllabus]
278 FCC V. AT&T INC.
[Syllabus]