11 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blockburger v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1989Blockburger v. United States (1932), 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 , cited in Missouri v. Hunter, supra. The Block-burger test bears repeating: “Each of the offenses created requires proof of a different element. 1989Blockburger v. United States (1932), 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 , cited in Missouri v. Hunter, supra. The Block-burger test bears repeating: “Each of the offenses created requires proof of a different element. | 1 | 3 |
Iannelli v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1985The test emphasizes the elements of the offenses and so "[i]f each requires proof of *1154 a fact that the other does not, the Block-burger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes...." Iannelli v. United States (1975), 420 U.S. 770, 785, n. 17 , 95 S.Ct. 1284 , 43 L.Ed.2d 616 . 1985The test emphasizes the elements of the offenses and so "[i]f each requires proof of *1154 a fact that the other does not, the Block-burger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes...." Iannelli v. United States (1975), 420 U.S. 770, 785, n. 17 , 95 S.Ct. 1284 , 43 L.Ed.2d 616 . | 1 | 2 |
McIntire v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Consistent with the absence of a federal double jeopardy violation under the Block-burger test, simultaneous convictions of robbery and confinement charges do not violate Indiana’s “analogous statutory elements test.” Smith, 717 N.E.2d at 1281 (citing Mclntire v. State, 717 N.E.2d 96, 99 (Ind.1999)). 2000Consistent with the absence of a federal double jeopardy violation under the Block-burger test, simultaneous convictions of robbery and confinement charges do not violate Indiana’s “analogous statutory elements test.” Smith, 717 N.E.2d at 1281 (citing Mclntire v. State, 717 N.E.2d 96, 99 (Ind.1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Illinois v. Vitalegreen2 sentences1999Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 416 , 100 S.Ct. 2260, 2265 , 65 L.Ed.2d 228, 235 (1980) (citations omitted). 1999Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 416 , 100 S.Ct. 2260, 2265 , 65 L.Ed.2d 228, 235 (1980) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Dixongreen2 sentences1997The Block burger inquiry, accordingly, serves as a means to determine this intent.” Dixon, 509 U.S. at 735 , 113 S.Ct. at 2881-82 , 125 L.Ed.2d at 593 (White, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (emphasis added). 1997The Block burger inquiry, accordingly, serves as a means to determine this intent.” Dixon, 509 U.S. at 735 , 113 S.Ct. at 2881-82 , 125 L.Ed.2d at 593 (White, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Scrougham v. Stategreen2 sentences1992See also, Scrougham v. State (1990), Ind.App., 564 N.E.2d 542 , trans. denied. 1992See also, Scrougham v. State (1990), Ind.App., 564 N.E.2d 542 , trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Elmore v. State
green
2 sentences1992This test or standard was further developed in Brown v. Ohio (1977), 432 U.S. 161, 166 , 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2226 , 58 L.Ed.2d 187 : This test emphasizes the elements of the two crimes. 'If each requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Block-burger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes ...' [Citations omitted.] Indiana adopted the Blockburger and Brown tests in Elmore v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 522 , 382 N.E.2d 893 , 897: The focus of a proper double jeopardy analysis must be on whether or not the offenses to be prosecuted 1992This test or standard was further developed in Brown v. Ohio (1977), 432 U.S. 161, 166 , 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2226 , 58 L.Ed.2d 187 : This test emphasizes the elements of the two crimes. 'If each requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Block-burger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes ...' [Citations omitted.] Indiana adopted the Blockburger and Brown tests in Elmore v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 522 , 382 N.E.2d 893 , 897: The focus of a proper double jeopardy analysis must be on whether or not the offenses to be prosecuted | 3 | 1983–1992 |
Brown v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1992This test or standard was further developed in Brown v. Ohio (1977), 432 U.S. 161, 166 , 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2226 , 58 L.Ed.2d 187 : This test emphasizes the elements of the two crimes. 'If each requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Block-burger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes ...' [Citations omitted.] Indiana adopted the Blockburger and Brown tests in Elmore v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 522 , 382 N.E.2d 893 , 897: The focus of a proper double jeopardy analysis must be on whether or not the offenses to be prosecuted 1992This test or standard was further developed in Brown v. Ohio (1977), 432 U.S. 161, 166 , 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2226 , 58 L.Ed.2d 187 : This test emphasizes the elements of the two crimes. 'If each requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Block-burger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes ...' [Citations omitted.] Indiana adopted the Blockburger and Brown tests in Elmore v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 522 , 382 N.E.2d 893 , 897: The focus of a proper double jeopardy analysis must be on whether or not the offenses to be prosecuted | 3 | 1978–1992 |
Richardson v. State
green
2 sentences2000Consistent with the absence of a federal double jeopardy violation under the Block-burger test, simultaneous convictions of robbery and confinement charges do not violate Indiana’s “analogous statutory elements test.” Smith, 717 N.E.2d at 1281 (citing Mclntire v. State, 717 N.E.2d 96, 99 (Ind.1999)). 2000Consistent with the absence of a federal double jeopardy violation under the Block-burger test, simultaneous convictions of robbery and confinement charges do not violate Indiana’s “analogous statutory elements test.” Smith, 717 N.E.2d at 1281 (citing Mclntire v. State, 717 N.E.2d 96, 99 (Ind.1999)). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
United States v. Jorge Enrique Gonzalez, A/K/A George, Maurice Roundy, Michael Timothy Sweeton
green
2 sentences1995Citing Garreft, the Eleventh Circuit has stated, "Once the primary tool for Double Jeopardy determinations, the Block-burger test is apparently now used, in large part, as a 'cannon of statutory construction'...." Gonzalez, supra, 921 F.2d at 1536 n. 5. 1995Citing Garreft, the Eleventh Circuit has stated, "Once the primary tool for Double Jeopardy determinations, the Block-burger test is apparently now used, in large part, as a 'cannon of statutory construction'...." Gonzalez, supra, 921 F.2d at 1536 n. 5. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.