green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1984 ·
…to succeed on a claim of double jeopardy, a defendant must show that in law and fact the two offenses charged are in reality the same.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jack Howard Potts, Cross-Appellant v. Walter D. Zant, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Cross-Appellee
(2×)
to succeed on a claim of double jeopardy, a defendant must show that in law and fact the two offenses charged are in reality the same.
cited
Cited "see"
Nettles v. Griffith
See Smith v. Rabalais, 659 F.2d 539, 542 (5th Cir.1981), cert, denied, 455 U.S. 992 , 102 S.Ct. 1619 , 71 L.Ed.2d 853 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Vasquez v. Coughlin
See Smith v. Rabalais, 659 F.2d 539, 546 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 992 , 102 S.Ct. 1619 , 71 L.Ed.2d 853 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Richard Lee Atkins
Id. at 153 ; accord United States v. Henry, 661 F.2d 894, 896 (5th Cir. Unit B Nov. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 992 , 102 S.Ct. 1619 , 71 L.Ed.2d 853 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
John Harvey Adamson v. James G. Ricketts, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections
(2×)
See Adamson v. Hill, 667 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir., 1983), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 992 , 102 S.Ct. 1619 , 71 L.Ed.2d 853 (1982) 2 The judge asked "At this point do you believe you understand the provisions of the plea agreement?" Adamson answered "Entirely sir." The judge then asked Adamson "Do you have any questions that you want to ask me about before we go any further?" and Adamson answered "No sir." Transcript, Change of Plea, January 15, 1977, at 7 3 Paragraph 5 of the plea agreement provides: It is agreed by all parties that the defendant shall testify truthfully and completely at all times, wh…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Broussard v. Johnson
In addition, the determination of the factfinder must be supported by “some evidence in the record.” Id.; see also Smith v. Rabalais, 659 F.2d 539, 545 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 992 , 102 S.Ct. 1619 , 71 L.Ed.2d 853 (1982).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Leeroy B. Bostic, Jr. v. Peter Carlson, Warden
See, e.g., Smith v. Rabalais, 659 F.2d 539, 545 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 992 , 102 S.Ct. 1619 , 71 L.Ed.2d 853 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Grandison v. Cuyler
See, e.g., Smith v. Rabalais, 659 F.2d 539, 545 (5th Cir.1981) (courts must consider ‘whether any evidence at all’ supports hearing committee decision) (quoting Willis v. Ciccone, 506 F,2d 1011, 1019 n. 11 (8th Cir.1974)), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 992 , 102 S.Ct. 1619 , 71 L.Ed.2d 853 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Albert W. Coachman
See also United States v. Henry, 661 F.2d 894, 896 (5th Cir.1981), ce rt. denied, 455 U.S. 992 , 102 S.Ct. 1619 , 71 L.Ed.2d 853 (1982); United States v. Ward, 696 F.2d 1315, 1319 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, -- U.S. --, 103 S.Ct. 2101 , 77 L.Ed.2d 308 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nathaniel Dudley, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. D. Lamar Stewart
See also Smith v. Rabalais, 659 F.2d 539, 543 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981) (transfer to maximum security is “obviously a deprivation of ‘liberty’ ” and entitles prisoner to minimal due process, citing Wolff), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 992 , 102 S.Ct. 1619 , 71 L.Ed.2d 853 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Sammy Lee Ward, Edward B. Prows, A/K/A Teddy
See, e.g., United States v. Henry, 661 F.2d 894, 896 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 992 , 102 S.Ct. 1619 , 71 L.Ed.2d 853 (1982); United States v. Marable, 578 F.2d 151, 154 (5th Cir.1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Baird v. State
Compare Townsend v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 418 N.E.2d 554, 558 , cert. denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1619 , 71 L.Ed.2d 853 (1982) with Harrington v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 622, 625 (pre-code decision).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Adamson
v.
Hill, Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona
v.
Hill, Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona
No. 81-6041.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 1, 1982.
Published
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (2)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.