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.
8 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky 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. Burgegreen2 sentences2020Put differently, is one offense included within another?” Commonwealth v. Burge, 947 S.W.2d 805, 811 (Ky. 1996) (internal citation omitted) (adopting the test set forth in Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S. Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L. 2020Here, no double jeopardy violation occurred because a conviction under both charges does not violate the Blockburger same-elements test, “which is the test we typically employ to determine if multiple convictions have been improperly imposed for the same conduct in violation of the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.” Kiper v. Commonwealth, 399 S.W.3d 736, 742 (Ky. 2012) (citing Burge, 947 S.W.2d at 811 ). | 3 | 5 |
Cope v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Put differently, is one offense included within another?" Commonwealth v. Burge, 94 7 S.W.2d 805, 811 (Ky. 1996) (internal citation omitted) (adopting the test set forth in Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932)). 2017Put differently, is one offense included within another?" Commonwealth v. Burge, 94 7 S.W.2d 805, 811 (Ky. 1996) (internal citation omitted) (adopting the test set forth in Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932)). | 2 | 2 |
Kiper v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2020Here, no double jeopardy violation occurred because a conviction under both charges does not violate the Blockburger same-elements test, “which is the test we typically employ to determine if multiple convictions have been improperly imposed for the same conduct in violation of the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.” Kiper v. Commonwealth, 399 S.W.3d 736, 742 (Ky. 2012) (citing Burge, 947 S.W.2d at 811 ). | 1 | 1 |
Beaty v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2010Thus, Smith's position is not well taken."). [19] Beaty v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 196, 210 (Ky.2003). [20] Id. (quotation marks omitted). [21] Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 340 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted). [22] Cf. Commonwealth v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 350 S.W.2d 465, 466 (Ky.1961) ("If the offering of each package may be considered to be a separate offense there would be no double jeopardy, because the proof required to sustain one of the indictments would not necessarily sustain any of the others [i.e., the Blockburger same elemen 2010Thus, Smith's position is not well taken."). [19] Beaty v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 196, 210 (Ky.2003). [20] Id. (quotation marks omitted). [21] Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 340 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted). [22] Cf. Commonwealth v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 350 S.W.2d 465, 466 (Ky.1961) ("If the offering of each package may be considered to be a separate offense there would be no double jeopardy, because the proof required to sustain one of the indictments would not necessarily sustain any of the others [i.e., the Blockburger same elemen | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Colonial Stores, Incorporatedgreen1 sentence2010Thus, Smith's position is not well taken."). [19] Beaty v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 196, 210 (Ky.2003). [20] Id. (quotation marks omitted). [21] Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 340 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted). [22] Cf. Commonwealth v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 350 S.W.2d 465, 466 (Ky.1961) ("If the offering of each package may be considered to be a separate offense there would be no double jeopardy, because the proof required to sustain one of the indictments would not necessarily sustain any of the others [i.e., the Blockburger same elemen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blockburger v. United States
green
2 sentences2020Put differently, is one offense included within another?” Commonwealth v. Burge, 947 S.W.2d 805, 811 (Ky. 1996) (internal citation omitted) (adopting the test set forth in Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S. Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L. 2020Put differently, is one offense included within another?” Commonwealth v. Burge, 947 S.W.2d 805, 811 (Ky. 1996) (internal citation omitted) (adopting the test set forth in Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S. Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L. | 5 | 2017–2020 |
Albernaz v. United States
green
2 sentences2010Thus, Smith's position is not well taken."). [19] Beaty v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 196, 210 (Ky.2003). [20] Id. (quotation marks omitted). [21] Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 340 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted). [22] Cf. Commonwealth v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 350 S.W.2d 465, 466 (Ky.1961) ("If the offering of each package may be considered to be a separate offense there would be no double jeopardy, because the proof required to sustain one of the indictments would not necessarily sustain any of the others [i.e., the Blockburger same elemen 2010Thus, Smith's position is not well taken."). [19] Beaty v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 196, 210 (Ky.2003). [20] Id. (quotation marks omitted). [21] Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 340 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted). [22] Cf. Commonwealth v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 350 S.W.2d 465, 466 (Ky.1961) ("If the offering of each package may be considered to be a separate offense there would be no double jeopardy, because the proof required to sustain one of the indictments would not necessarily sustain any of the others [i.e., the Blockburger same elemen | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.