Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1911–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Rutledge v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2024Thus, the second conviction, even if it results in no greater sentence, is an impermissible 12 punishment. [Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 ,] 864-865, 105 S. Ct. 1668 [(1985)]. 2008 ND 228, ¶ 22 (quoting Rutledge v. U.S., 517 U.S. 292, 302 , 116 S. Ct. 1241 (1996)) (quotations omitted). [¶48] We conclude this conviction was in violation of the constitutional right against double jeopardy. 2024Thus, the second conviction, even if it results in no greater sentence, is an impermissible 12 punishment. [Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 ,] 864-865, 105 S. Ct. 1668 [(1985)]. 2008 ND 228, ¶ 22 (quoting Rutledge v. U.S., 517 U.S. 292, 302 , 116 S. Ct. 1241 (1996)) (quotations omitted). [¶48] We conclude this conviction was in violation of the constitutional right against double jeopardy. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Moosgreen2 sentences2024Thus, the second conviction, even if it results in no greater sentence, is an impermissible 12 punishment. [Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856,] 864-865, 105 S. Ct. 1668 [(1985)]. 2008 ND 228, { 22 (quoting Rutledge v. U.S., 517 U.S. 292, 302, 116 S. Ct. 1241 (1996)) (quotations omitted). [48] We conclude this conviction was in violation of the constitutional right against double jeopardy. 2024Thus, the second conviction, even if it results in no greater sentence, is an impermissible 12 punishment. [Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 ,] 864-865, 105 S. Ct. 1668 [(1985)]. 2008 ND 228, ¶ 22 (quoting Rutledge v. U.S., 517 U.S. 292, 302 , 116 S. Ct. 1241 (1996)) (quotations omitted). [¶48] We conclude this conviction was in violation of the constitutional right against double jeopardy. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Dieterlegreen1 sentence2022See Dieterle, 2013 ND 130 , ¶¶ 11-13. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ball v. United States
green
2 sentences2024Thus, the second conviction, even if it results in no greater sentence, is an impermissible 12 punishment. [Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 ,] 864-865, 105 S. Ct. 1668 [(1985)]. 2008 ND 228, ¶ 22 (quoting Rutledge v. U.S., 517 U.S. 292, 302 , 116 S. Ct. 1241 (1996)) (quotations omitted). [¶48] We conclude this conviction was in violation of the constitutional right against double jeopardy. 2024Thus, the second conviction, even if it results in no greater sentence, is an impermissible 12 punishment. [Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 ,] 864-865, 105 S. Ct. 1668 [(1985)]. 2008 ND 228, ¶ 22 (quoting Rutledge v. U.S., 517 U.S. 292, 302 , 116 S. Ct. 1241 (1996)) (quotations omitted). [¶48] We conclude this conviction was in violation of the constitutional right against double jeopardy. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Breckenridge
green
2 sentences1981Thus in People v. Breckenridge, 81 Mich.App. 6 , 263 N.W.2d 922 (1978), the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed a conviction of the violation of that State’s securities Act because the notes in that instance constituted a loan which by definition was exempt from the Act. 1981Thus in People v. Breckenridge, 81 Mich.App. 6 , 263 N.W.2d 922 (1978), the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed a conviction of the violation of that State’s securities Act because the notes in that instance constituted a loan which by definition was exempt from the Act. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Fuchs
green
1 sentence1974Was the evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict and, in particular, may a conviction be sustained where virtually the only evidence to sustain the conviction is the test?” This action was tried and the appeal was filed prior to the release of our opinions in State v. Salhus, 220 N.W.2d 852 (N.D.1974), and State v. Fuchs, 219 N.W.2d 842 (N.D.1974). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
State v. Salhus
green
1 sentence1974Was the evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict and, in particular, may a conviction be sustained where virtually the only evidence to sustain the conviction is the test?” This action was tried and the appeal was filed prior to the release of our opinions in State v. Salhus, 220 N.W.2d 852 (N.D.1974), and State v. Fuchs, 219 N.W.2d 842 (N.D.1974). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Webb v. State
neutral
2 sentences1926C.) 267 Fed. 276 ; State v. Nunnelly, 43 Ark. 68 ; Brown v. Tuscaloosa, 196 Ala. 475 , 71 So. 672 ; Webb v. State, 13 Ga. App. 733 , 80 S. E. 14 . ’’ ’ *678 In State v. Nunnelly, 43 Ark. 68 , it is said: “The established rule is that the former conviction is a bar to a subsequent indictment for any offense of which the defendant might have been convicted under the indictment and testimony in the first case(Emphasis is ours). 1926C.) 267 Fed. 276 ; State v. Nunnelly, 43 Ark. 68 ; Brown v. Tuscaloosa, 196 Ala. 475 , 71 So. 672 ; Webb v. State, 13 Ga. App. 733 , 80 S. E. 14 . ’’ ’ *678 In State v. Nunnelly, 43 Ark. 68 , it is said: “The established rule is that the former conviction is a bar to a subsequent indictment for any offense of which the defendant might have been convicted under the indictment and testimony in the first case(Emphasis is ours). | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Ex parte Henkes
neutral
1 sentence1926C.) 267 Fed. 276 ; State v. Nunnelly, 43 Ark. 68 ; Brown v. Tuscaloosa, 196 Ala. 475 , 71 So. 672 ; Webb v. State, 13 Ga. App. 733 , 80 S. E. 14 . ’’ ’ *678 In State v. Nunnelly, 43 Ark. 68 , it is said: “The established rule is that the former conviction is a bar to a subsequent indictment for any offense of which the defendant might have been convicted under the indictment and testimony in the first case(Emphasis is ours). | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Brown v. City of Tuscaloosa
green
2 sentences1926C.) 267 Fed. 276 ; State v. Nunnelly, 43 Ark. 68 ; Brown v. Tuscaloosa, 196 Ala. 475 , 71 So. 672 ; Webb v. State, 13 Ga. App. 733 , 80 S. E. 14 . ’’ ’ *678 In State v. Nunnelly, 43 Ark. 68 , it is said: “The established rule is that the former conviction is a bar to a subsequent indictment for any offense of which the defendant might have been convicted under the indictment and testimony in the first case(Emphasis is ours). 1926C.) 267 Fed. 276 ; State v. Nunnelly, 43 Ark. 68 ; Brown v. Tuscaloosa, 196 Ala. 475 , 71 So. 672 ; Webb v. State, 13 Ga. App. 733 , 80 S. E. 14 . ’’ ’ *678 In State v. Nunnelly, 43 Ark. 68 , it is said: “The established rule is that the former conviction is a bar to a subsequent indictment for any offense of which the defendant might have been convicted under the indictment and testimony in the first case(Emphasis is ours). | 1 | 1926–1926 |
State v. Nunnelly
neutral
2 sentences1926C.) 267 Fed. 276 ; State v. Nunnelly, 43 Ark. 68 ; Brown v. Tuscaloosa, 196 Ala. 475 , 71 So. 672 ; Webb v. State, 13 Ga. App. 733 , 80 S. E. 14 . ’’ ’ *678 In State v. Nunnelly, 43 Ark. 68 , it is said: “The established rule is that the former conviction is a bar to a subsequent indictment for any offense of which the defendant might have been convicted under the indictment and testimony in the first case(Emphasis is ours). 1926C.) 267 Fed. 276 ; State v. Nunnelly, 43 Ark. 68 ; Brown v. Tuscaloosa, 196 Ala. 475 , 71 So. 672 ; Webb v. State, 13 Ga. App. 733 , 80 S. E. 14 . ’’ ’ *678 In State v. Nunnelly, 43 Ark. 68 , it is said: “The established rule is that the former conviction is a bar to a subsequent indictment for any offense of which the defendant might have been convicted under the indictment and testimony in the first case(Emphasis is ours). | 1 | 1926–1926 |
State v. Lismore
neutral
1 sentence1926To the same effect, see State v. Lismore, 94 Ark. 213 , 29 L.R.A.(N.S.) 721, 126 S. W. 855 . | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Neuendorff v. . Duryea
green
1 sentence1911Lindenmuller v. People was approved in Neuendorff v. Duryea, 69 N. Y. 557 , 25 Am. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Lindenmuller v. People
green
1 sentence1911The convention that adopted it sat under a Sunday law, adjourning in obedience to it, and in the conclusion of the instrument it is solemnly affirmed by its authors that their signatures were attached thereto a. d. 1820, a form adopted by all Christian nations in solemn public acts.” And Lindenmuller v. People, 33 Barb. 548 , was a case sustaining a conviction for the violation of a city ordinance prohibiting theatrical performances on Sunday, and holding it valid on the ground that Christianity was the basis of our free institutions, the conservator of the peace, order, morality, and social w | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.