green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
13.1 score
“t seems to us very clear that where, as in this case, a person has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents included in it, he cannot be a second time tried for one of those incidents without being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.”
Treatment trajectory · 1925 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1925
1975
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Robert Ortega v. William Stephens, Director
wjhere, as in this case, a person has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents included in it, he cannot be a second time tried for one of those incidents without being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Delgado v. Florida Department of Corrections
t seems to us very clear that where, as in this case, a person has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents included in it, he cannot be a second time tried for one of those incidents without being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stephens v. State
(2×)
In dicta, the Supreme Court commented on the effect of an acquittal on a subsequent prosecution: In Mr. Wharton’s treatise on Criminal Law, vol. 1, § 560, the rule is stated as follows, to wit: “an acquittal or conviction for a greater offence included is a bar to a subsequent indictment for a minor offence included in the former, wherever, under the indictment for the greater offence, the defendant could have been convicted of the less; ” and he instances several cases in which the rule applies; for example, “an acquittal on an indictment for robbery, burglary, and larceny, may be pl…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Allen
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The Court further stated that “where ... a person has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents included in it, he cannot be a second time tried for one of those incidents without being twice put in jeopardy for the same offence.” 131 U.S. at 188 , 9 S.Ct. at 676 (quoted with approval in Brown, 4-32 U.S. at 168, 97 S.Ct. at 2226 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jamiel Chagra
In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. at 177, 188-89 , 9 S.Ct. at 673, 676-677 . 8 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Chagra
The Court quoted 131 U.S. at 188 , 9 S.Ct. at p. 676, from Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433, 435 (1871): The test is not, whether the defendant has already been tried for the same act, but whether he has been put in jeopardy for the same offense.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Thomas Edward Castillo
Id. at 545 ; see In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889) (holding that convicting a man for bigamy and then prosecuting him for committing adultery, a continuous offense, with the same wife on the next day after the end of the bigamy offense violated double jeopardy because adultery was a necessary part of, and a lesser-included offense of, bigamy); January v. State, 695 S.W.2d 215 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1985) (holding that convictions in one trial for kidnapping and attempted capital murder in the course of kidnapping were held to *465 violate the double jeopardy cla…
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Borrero
See Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 683 , 97 S.Ct. 2912 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977) (per curiam) ("`[A] person [who] has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents included in it, . . . cannot be a second time tried for one of those incidents without being twice put in jeopardy for the same offence.'" (alterations in original) (quoting In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889))). ¶ 21 So too it also violates double jeopardy to punish a kidnapping separately when it is the "substantial step" used to prove attempted murder.
discussed
Cited "see"
Porter v. Superior Court
(2×)
See In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 187-188 , 9 S.Ct. 672, 675-676 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889); cf. Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338 , 31 S.Ct. 421 , 55 L.Ed. 489 (1911).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Buffington
See United States v. Chestaro, 197 F.3d 600, 609 (2d Cir.1999) (citing Ex parte Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 189-90 , 9 S.Ct 672, 676-77 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889); United States v. Gooday, 714 F.2d 80, 82 (9th Cir.1983)).
cited
Cited "see"
Wilson v. Czerniak
See In re Nelsen, 131 U.S. 176, 187-88 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889); cf. Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338 , 31 S.Ct. 421 , 55 L.Ed. 489 (1911).
cited
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Rice
See In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 187-188 [, 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 ] (1889); cf. Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338 [, 31 S.Ct. 421 , 55 L.Ed. 489 ] (1911).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. George Lynch and Christopher Moscinski
(2×)
See North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969) (citing Ex Parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163 , 21 L.Ed. 872 (1874) and In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lewis C. Wallace v. A.L. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
(2×)
See Ex parte Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 188 , 9 S.Ct. 672, 676 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889) (finding a double jeopardy violation based on a conviction of both unlawful cohabitation and its lesser-included offense of adultery).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Edwin Seda
(2×)
See Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 168 , 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2226 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977) (citing In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 190 , 9 S.Ct. 672, 677 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889), and Nielsen 's approval of State v. Cooper, 13 N.J.L. 361 (1833), which held that a conviction for arson barred a subsequent felony murder indictment based on the death of the man killed in the fire); United States v. Kragness, 830 F.2d 842, 863-64 (8th Cir.1987) (applying similar analysis to RICO conspiracy). 12 We recognize that some statutes covering a broad range of conduct can apply simultaneously with more focused statutes t…
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Susan Rosenberg
(5×)
See Nielsen, 131 U.S. at 189 , 9 S.Ct. at 676 ; Jordan, 653 F.2d at 871-72 ; Sabella, 272 F.2d at 211 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Melvin W. Martin v. J.B. Taylor, Acting Warden Attorney General of the State of Virginia
(2×)
Jordan, 653 F.2d at 873-74 ; see In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 188 , 9 S.Ct. 672, 676 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889), quoting Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433, 434 (1871); United States v. Sabella, 272 F.2d 206, 211 (2d Cir.1959). 36 Id. at 1188. 37 In its Brief, the Commonwealth of Virginia asks this court to reconsider the reasoning behind the Jordan decision: "The Commonwealth is thus asking this Court to reconsider the reasoning behind its ruling in Jordan, which was, in effect, gratuitous, and to hold instead that successive prosecutions occur for double jeopardy purposes only when the offenses…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Charles S. Ragins
Jordan, 653 F.2d at 873-74 ; see In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 188 , 9 S.Ct. 672, 676 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889), quoting Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433, 434 (1871); Sabella, 272 F.2d at 211 .
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Hall
See In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 187-88 , 9 S.Ct. 672, 675-76 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889); cf. Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338 , 31 S.Ct. 421 , 55 L.Ed. 489 (1911).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Hickson
See ex parte Nielson, 131 U.S. 176 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Henderson
See In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 187-188 , 9 S.Ct. 672, 675-676 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889); cf. Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338 , 31 S.Ct. 421 , 55 L.Ed. 489 (1911).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Carlberg
See In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 187-88 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889); Cf. Gavieres v. U.S., 220 U.S. 338 , 31 S.Ct. 421 , 55 L.Ed. 489 (1911).
cited
Cited "see"
Heard v. Jago
See Hans Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 190 , 9 S.Ct. 672, 677 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889).
discussed
Cited "see"
State Ex Rel. Watson v. Ferguson
(2×)
See In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 187-188 , 9 S.Ct. 672, 675-676 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889); cf. Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338 , 31 S.Ct. 421 , 55 L.Ed. 489 (1911).
discussed
Cited "see"
State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Hamilton
(2×)
See In re Nielsen, 131 US 176, 187-188 , 33 L Ed 118 , 9 S Ct 672 (1889); cf. Gavieres v United States, 220 US 338 , 55 L Ed 489 , 31 S Ct 421 (1911).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Chavez
See Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970) and In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Gary Hughes
(2×)
See In re Nielsen, 131 US 176, 187-188 , 9 S Ct 672, 675-676 , 33 L Ed 118 (1889); cf. Gavieres v United States, 220 US 338 , 31 S Ct 421 , 55 L Ed 489 (1911).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lorenzo Shelton
See In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 187-188 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889); cf. Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338 , 31 S.Ct. 421 , 55 L.Ed. 489 (1911).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Frumento
See In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 187-188 ( 9 S.Ct. 672, 675-676 , 33 L.Ed. 118 ) (1889); cf. Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338 ( 31 S.Ct. 421 , 55 L.Ed. 489 ) (1911).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Frumento
See In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 187-188 [ 9 S.Ct. 672, 675-676 , 33 L.Ed. 118 ] (1889); cf. Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338 [ 31 S.Ct. 421 , 55 L.Ed. 489 ] (1911).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. White
(2×)
See In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176 [ 9 S Ct 672 ; 33 L Ed 118 ] (1889), discussed in Abbate v United States, supra, at 201.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Elliott
(2×)
See, for example, Hans Nielsen, Petitioner, 131 U.S. 176 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889), and State v. Cooper, 13 N.J.L. 361 , 25 Am.Dec. 490 (1833), cited therein.
cited
Cited "see"
Stiltner v. Rhay
See Hans Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 182 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Townsend
Eq. 313, 145 A. 639 ; see, Black, Law Dictionary (4 ed.) p. 14. 2 Phelps v. State, 10 Ga. App. 41 , 72 S. E. 524 ; Gay v. State, 105 Ga. 599 , 31 S. E. 569 , 70 A. S. R. 68; State v. Dunston, 78 N. C. 36 ; State v. Miller, 90 Mo. App. 131 ; see, Ex parte Nielsen, 131 U. S. 176 , 9 S. Ct. 672 , 33 L. ed. 118; In re Snow, 120 U. S. 274 , 7 S. Ct. 556 , 30 L. ed. 658.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hayman v. United States
See Ex parte Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 ; Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607 , 66 S.Ct. 402 , 90 L.Ed. 350 ; Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 , 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Bryson Jose Roberto A. Miguel
See, e.g., Nielsen, 131 U.S. at 187-88 , 9 S.Ct. 672 ; Brown, 432 U.S. at 169 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Neblock
Credit Corp., 344 U.S. 218 , 73 S.Ct. 227 , 97 L.Ed. 260 (1952); In re Snow, 120 U.S. 274 , 7 S.Ct. 556 , 30 L.Ed. 658 (1887); see also In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889); see generally § 1.07(1)(e), ALI Model Penal Code, reprinted in ALI Model Penal Code and Commentaries (Part I) 101 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Yoskowitz
(2×)
See, e.g., In re Nielsen, supra, 131 U.S. at 188 , 9 S.Ct. at 676 ; Jordan, supra, 653 F. 2d 874 ; Sabella, supra, 272 F. 2d at 212 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Boulies v. People
Id.; see also In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mark Reiter
Compare In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889) (prosecution on successive indictments barred where second prosecution does not require proof of additional significant facts); Jordan v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 653 F.2d 870, 872-73 (4th Cir.1980) (same); United States v. Sabella, 272 F.2d 206, 212 (2d Cir.1959) (same). 30 Order affirmed. 1 On May 10, 1988, we entered an order affirming Judge Owen's order and noted that an opinion would follow 2 The matter was originally captioned United States v. Jackson.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Reiter
Compare In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889) (prosecution on successive indictments barred where second prosecution does not require proof of additional significant facts); Jordan v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 653 F.2d 870, 872-73 (4th Cir.1980) (same); United States v. Sabella, 272 F.2d 206, 212 (2d Cir.1959) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stanley L. Davis v. Robert Herring, Sheriff of Lee County, Mississippi and Edwin L. Pittman, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Id. at 64 , 98 S.Ct. at 2178 -79 (quoting in part United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 571 , 97 S.Ct. 1349, 1354 , 51 L.Ed.2d 642 (1977); Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141, 143 , 82 S.Ct. 671, 672 , 7 L.Ed.2d 629 (1962)) (citations omitted); see also Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203 , 104 S.Ct. 2305 , 81 L.Ed.2d 164 (1984). 41 . 131 U.S. 176 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, Branch Viii
See, e.g., Ex parte Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States ex rel. Stevens v. Circuit Court of Milwaukee County
See, e.g., Ex parte Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Larry Burdette Johnson
See, e. g., In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Giles v. United States
(2×)
Compare Ex parte Nielsen, Petitioner, 131 U.S. 176, 186-190 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Drew
v.
Drew
1061.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 13, 1889.
Mr. Solicitor General for plaintiff in error., Mr. James L. 'Bradford for defendant in error.
Bradley, Miller, Field, Jones.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (1) · Fifth Circuit (1)
Mr. Justice Bradley
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a suit in equity brought against the United States to establish the claim of the plaintiff to have land warrants or certificates of location for one thousand and fifteen acres of land made out and delivered to him by way of indemnity and satisfaction for a certain concession or grant of land made by the Spanish governor to one Francisco Adante, in 1788, the land itself having been surveyed as public land by the United States and disposed of to purchasers. The claim is made under the provisions of the act of June 2d, 1858, entitled “An act to provide for the location of certain confirmed private land claims of the State of Missouri, and for other purposes,” 11 Stat. 294, the claim in question having been confirmed by act of Congress passed February 28, 1823, 3 Stat. 727. The suit is subject to the same objections which exist in relation to the suits of Carrie Jones and others, just disposed of, and the same decree must be made as in those cases.
The decree of the Circuit Court is reversed, am,d the cause rema/nded, with instructions to dismiss the originad petition or hill.
Mr. Justice Miller and Mr. Justice Field dissented, for the reasons stated in their dissent in United States v. Jones.