19 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1978–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Klobuchirgreen2 sentences1985As we suggested in Commonwealth v. Klobuchir, 486 Pa. 241 , 405 A.2d 881 (1979), Article I § 10 of our Constitution affords protection co-extensive with that afforded under the federal double jeopardy clause. 1985As we suggested in Commonwealth v. Klobuchir, 486 Pa. 241 , 405 A.2d 881 (1979), Article I § 10 of our Constitution affords protection co-extensive with that afforded under the federal double jeopardy clause. | 4 | 6 |
Commonwealth v. Millsgreen2 sentences2020As we observed above, one of the important protections offered by the federal double jeopardy clause is its guarantee against “multiple punishment for the same offense at one trial.” Mills, 286 A.2d at 641 . 2020Mills, 286 A.2d at 641 (observing that the federal double jeopardy clause protects against “multiple punishment for the same offense at one trial”). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Smithgreen1 sentence2025This, of course, is in addition to . . . tactics specifically designed to provoke a mistrial or deny the defendant a fair trial. ____________________________________________ 2 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (holding that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution”). -4- J-S20023-25 Commonwealth v. Johnson, 231 A.3d 807 , 826 (Pa. 2020); see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 615 A.2d 321, 325 (Pa. 1992 | 1 | 1 |
Currier v. Virginiagreen1 sentence2021See Currier, 138 S.Ct. at 2150 (“If a defendant’s consent to two trials can overcome concerns lying at the historic core of the Double Jeopardy Clause, so too we think it must overcome a double jeopardy complaint under Ashe.”). | 1 | 1 |
Richardson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2021Relatedly, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that a federal double jeopardy claim does not lie where a deadlocked jury necessitates a retrial, “[r]egardless of the sufficiency of the evidence at [the] first trial.” Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317, 326 (1984) (emphasis added). 2021The Dissent maintains that such a claim is barred by the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Richardson, which held that a federal double jeopardy claim does not lie where a deadlocked jury necessitates a retrial, “[r]egardless of the sufficiency of the evidence at [the] first trial.” See Richardson, 468 U.S. at 326 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Harpergreen2 sentences2011See also Commonwealth v. Harper, 512 Pa. 155 , 516 A.2d 319, 326-327 (Papadakos, J. concurring) (“Tarver effected a major change in the law. 2011See also Commonwealth v. Harper, 512 Pa. 155 , 516 A.2d 319, 326-327 (Papadakos, J. concurring) (“Tarver effected a major change in the law. | 1 | 1 |
Albernaz v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2011See Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981). 6 . 2011See Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981). 6 . | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Zollergreen2 sentences1985Commonwealth v. Zoller, et al., 507 Pa. 344, n. 1 , 490 A.2d 394, n. 1 (1985); Commonwealth v. Klobuchir, 486 Pa. 241 , 254 n. 12, 405 A.2d 881 , 887-88 n. 12 (1979). 5 . 1985Commonwealth v. Zoller, et al., 507 Pa. 344, n. 1 , 490 A.2d 394, n. 1 (1985); Commonwealth v. Klobuchir, 486 Pa. 241 , 254 n. 12, 405 A.2d 881 , 887-88 n. 12 (1979). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Corcorangreen1 sentence1980We read the reference to “double jeopardy” in Commonwealth v. Corcoran, 78 Pa.Super.Ct. 430, 433 (1922) as involving the Pennsylvania double jeopardy clause, since the case occurred forty-seven years before the Supreme Court of the United States for the first time held the federal double jeopardy clause applicable to the states. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Benton v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1980Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969). 1980Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969). | 3 | 1978–1980 |
Blockburger v. United States
green
2 sentences2011Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) was a statutory interpretation case that set forth a rule of statutory construction and did not discuss or cite the federal double jeopardy clause. 2011Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) was a statutory interpretation case that set forth a rule of statutory construction and did not discuss or cite the federal double jeopardy clause. | 2 | 1995–2011 |
Commonwealth v. Hude
green
2 sentences2005Hude, 425 A.2d at 320 ; see also Commonwealth v. Klobuchir, 486 Pa. 241 , 254 n. 12, 405 A.2d 881 , 887 n. 12 (1979) (Nix, J., Opinion in Support of Affirmance, joined by O’Brien & Larsen, JJ.). 11 . 2002Hude, 425 A.2d at 320 ; see also Commonwealth v. Klobuchir, 486 Pa. 241 , 405 A.2d 881 , 887 & n. 12 (1979) (Nix, J., Opinion in Support of Affirmance, joined by O'Brien & Larsen, JJ.). [6] This Court has previously looked to the public policies in favor of or against the application of collateral estoppel before determining whether or not it should be applied in a particular setting. | 2 | 2002–2005 |
Holden v. Hardy
green
2 sentences1978The fact that the double jeopardy protection provided under the Fifth Amendment has been made applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment, North Carolina v. Pearce, supra; Robinson v. Neil, 409 U.S. 505 , 93 S.Ct. 876 , 35 L.Ed.2d 29 (1973); Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969), does not necessarily deter a state from providing in its constitution an enhanced protection for its citizens, Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 , 18 S.Ct. 383 , 42 L.Ed. 780 (1897); Commonwealth v. Campana, 455 Pa. 622 , 314 A.2d 854 (1974). 1978The fact that the double jeopardy protection provided under the Fifth Amendment has been made applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment, North Carolina v. Pearce, supra; Robinson v. Neil, 409 U.S. 505 , 93 S.Ct. 876 , 35 L.Ed.2d 29 (1973); Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969), does not necessarily deter a state from providing in its constitution an enhanced protection for its citizens, Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 , 18 S.Ct. 383 , 42 L.Ed. 780 (1897); Commonwealth v. Campana, 455 Pa. 622 , 314 A.2d 854 (1974). | 2 | 1978–1978 |
Commonwealth v. Campana
green
2 sentences1978The fact that the double jeopardy protection provided under the Fifth Amendment has been made applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment, North Carolina v. Pearce, supra; Robinson v. Neil, 409 U.S. 505 , 93 S.Ct. 876 , 35 L.Ed.2d 29 (1973); Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969), does not necessarily deter a state from providing in its constitution an enhanced protection for its citizens, Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 , 18 S.Ct. 383 , 42 L.Ed. 780 (1897); Commonwealth v. Campana, 455 Pa. 622 , 314 A.2d 854 (1974). 1978The fact that the double jeopardy protection provided under the Fifth Amendment has been made applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment, North Carolina v. Pearce, supra; Robinson v. Neil, 409 U.S. 505 , 93 S.Ct. 876 , 35 L.Ed.2d 29 (1973); Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969), does not necessarily deter a state from providing in its constitution an enhanced protection for its citizens, Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 , 18 S.Ct. 383 , 42 L.Ed. 780 (1897); Commonwealth v. Campana, 455 Pa. 622 , 314 A.2d 854 (1974). | 2 | 1978–1978 |
Robinson v. Neil
green
2 sentences1978The fact that the double jeopardy protection provided under the Fifth Amendment has been made applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment, North Carolina v. Pearce, supra; Robinson v. Neil, 409 U.S. 505 , 93 S.Ct. 876 , 35 L.Ed.2d 29 (1973); Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969), does not necessarily deter a state from providing in its constitution an enhanced protection for its citizens, Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 , 18 S.Ct. 383 , 42 L.Ed. 780 (1897); Commonwealth v. Campana, 455 Pa. 622 , 314 A.2d 854 (1974). 1978The fact that the double jeopardy protection provided under the Fifth Amendment has been made applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment, North Carolina v. Pearce, supra; Robinson v. Neil, 409 U.S. 505 , 93 S.Ct. 876 , 35 L.Ed.2d 29 (1973); Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969), does not necessarily deter a state from providing in its constitution an enhanced protection for its citizens, Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 , 18 S.Ct. 383 , 42 L.Ed. 780 (1897); Commonwealth v. Campana, 455 Pa. 622 , 314 A.2d 854 (1974). | 2 | 1978–1978 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2025This, of course, is in addition to . . . tactics specifically designed to provoke a mistrial or deny the defendant a fair trial. ____________________________________________ 2 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (holding that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution”). -4- J-S20023-25 Commonwealth v. Johnson, 231 A.3d 807 , 826 (Pa. 2020); see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 615 A.2d 321, 325 (Pa. 1992 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Oregon v. Kennedy
green
2 sentences2014Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 673 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982). “[T]he defendant’s right to complete his trial before the first jury would be a'hollow shell if the inevitable motion for mistrial were held to prevent a later invocation of the bar of double jeopardy in all circumstances.” Id. 2014Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 673 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982). “[T]he defendant’s right to complete his trial before the first jury would be a'hollow shell if the inevitable motion for mistrial were held to prevent a later invocation of the bar of double jeopardy in all circumstances.” Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Commonwealth v. Breeland
green
1 sentence1996Commonwealth v. Breeland, supra at 154, 664 A.2d at 1359 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
United States v. Halper
red
2 sentences1995In United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 , 109 S.Ct. 1892 , 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989), the United States Supreme Court considered whether a civil sanction, in that case a monetary penalty, may constitute punishment for purposes of the federal double jeopardy clause. 1995In United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 , 109 S.Ct. 1892 , 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989), the United States Supreme Court considered whether a civil sanction, in that case a monetary penalty, may constitute punishment for purposes of the federal double jeopardy clause. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Grady v. Corbin
red
1 sentence1990The United States Supreme Court held that the federal double jeopardy clause bars a subsequent prosecution if “to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted.” Id. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.